Introduction
Notwithstanding the advent of nuclear deterrence, conventional war has remained the norm throughout much of the world, and it has been waged by nuclear powers on weaker non-nuclear powers. The tactics used have been, as they always are, bloody and brutal. In very many cases a weaker ally of one nuclear power is subject to coercion by the forces of another opposed nuclear power
In this essay when I refer to the the West I take it to be the EU and NATO, there are other liberal capitalist democracies that could be counted as part of “the west” but not geographically
140 countries abstained in the UN General Assembly vote to condemn the Russian Invasion of Ukraine
This hypocrisy has had quite wide coverage since the beginning. This piece from Al Jazeera captures it well
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/27/western-media-coverage-ukraine-russia-invasion-criticism
Aditya Chakraborty sums up the case for double standards in typically robust style
Also just look at the tone of the responses in the comments posted under an FT article arguing that this is no time for “African Neutrality” you will be left in no doubt how this is seen by many
This articles approving of Kier Starmer telling labour MPs to fall in line on this issue - reclaiming Labours true heritage.
'In a prewar piece for the Guardian, he was splendidly forthright: “the likes of the Stop the War coalition are not benign voices for peace. At best they are naive; at worst they actively give succour to authoritarian leaders who directly threaten democracies.” '
Just one example “There are moments when the tectonic plates of history shift beneath our feet and Europe is violently remade”
Air Commodore (retired) Carl Scott, UK defence attaché to Moscow 2011-2016.
“the evidence of Putin’s path was never concealed”…“we reported the inevitability of conflict in detail, regularly and with the despair of Cassandra”
Letter to the Financial Times 23 March 2022
The nature of the peace either settles things or sets the conditions for the next war.
There were many meetings between the US and Russian Federation in the period following 1989-91, it was not a shooting war but it was treated by many as a victory, triumphalism was in the air. It is appropriate to look at what happened next in this context.
We poured in Marshall Aid into a defeated Germany after 1945 but left Russia to the tender mercies of gangster capitalism after 1990 – we sent naïve believers in market capitalism (with their MBAs and little wisdom) to a country that needed reconstruction, the west was party to privatisations and ignored how they were abused.
More generally generous terms are wise and harsh terms unwise; after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, France was treated as an equal partner and included in the Congress of Vienna as an equal partner (this conception of the concert of Europe included Russia incidentally). In contrast after the defeat of France in 1870 harsh terms contributed to the arms race that led to WW1 and its settlement caused resentment in Germany after 1918.
No value judgement here merely an observation about geography.
Russian foreign policy can be explained by its drive to the southern end of the Baltic in the north (ice free), for buffer states towards Europe (invasions from Sweden, Poland, Germany, France) and to the Black Sea in the south.
Of course there are cultural and other factors but this thread is remarkably constant.
This article goes into some detail about the long build up to the war since the collapse of the USSR
Ukraine; How did we get here? Edward Stourton and a panel look at the long historical view over the last millennia this is a good listen but will only be available for a short time
This is happening because of economic development and globalisation, technology shrinks distances and the economies of the rest of the world are catching up - so what they do has global implications through complex supply chains, when they become strong enough to participate in regional power-plays the effects are not limited tho their own region.
The popular term in use is to say a multi-polar world. I say power block competition to emphasis that this is indeed an old pattern. In history it was competition between empires, kingdoms or nations. Think of European history in the c17, 18 and 19, now think of it on a world scale.
Examples;
"Brazil is blaming the problems with the supply of fertiliser not on Russia but on western sanctions, which were imposed without Brasília being consulted."
Rise in the price of staples "Egypt, with 100 million people, is scrambling to secure dwindling supplies, as are equally populous countries such as Bangladesh and Indonesia."
Both of these from a a review of The Age of the Strongman: How the Cult of the Leader Threatens Democracy Around the World by Gideon Rachman, Bodley Head
We all remember Donald Trump's complaint about military spending in NATO, in this case he was only expressing something that is widely observed. Here is a typical quote;
“For decades Europeans have paid relatively little in money, lives or resources for their defence — and paid even less attention, sheltering under an American nuclear umbrella left over from the Cold War.” Steven Erlanger New York Times 17th February (5 days before the invasion)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/world/europe/ukraine-russia-europe-nato-security.html
Lords Dannet and West were very clear on The Week in Westminster on Saturday 26/2/22;
Thoeodore Roosevelt they recalled said "speak softly and carry a big stick". Our politicians are speaking loudly because they don't have a stick, in fact one of them went so far as to say that our current defence policy amounted to "operationalising their bumper sticker of global Britain". Some of our assets such as they are, are in the wrong hemisphere, our interests, they pointed out, lie in the security of Europe.
What maybe needs adding to this is that not all fault lies with Europe, a conservative Australian perspective lamenting the lack of US leadership over a prolonged time can be found in
America in Retreat, the. Decline of US leadership from WW2 to Covid. Michael Pembroke, Oneworld, 2020, ISBN 978-1-78607-987-9
On p136-7 we have “conduct that helps create the very threat against which it is designed to protect is the American led expansion of NATO…right up to the borders of Russia’’. The book notes that George Kennan and almost 2 dozen retired senior officials from the state and defence departments penned an open letter opposing NATO expansion in 1995
Widely reported and covered on TV
Widely reported, calling Putin a “butcher”, one who “cannot remain in power”.
This is what Simon Jenkins made of it
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/28/biden-diplomatic-liability-putin-hands
The morale high ground is apparently bolstered by the (only recent) advent of accurate targeting allowing atrocities like the bombing of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia to fade from memory.
One side effect of this is the increase in the Wests use of assassination (extra judicial killing) as a tactic, it does this using drone strikes – 57 under Bush, 563 under Obama, even more under Trump and with less disclosure
Older information tracking them
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trump-afghanistan-middle-east-strikes-civilian-deaths
The need for verification means that drone pilots, unlike their bomber flying colleagues, must get detailed shots of the corpses for verification purposes – this has been reported to have damaging psychological effects on some of them.
Then of course there are still mistakes (wrong target or wrong intelligence) ad the drivers of those killed in drone strikes may be pressed into service, they of course die with the target, they have families who may be radicalised, regardless of the ethics this increasingly used tactic has serious drawbacks.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trump-afghanistan-middle-east-strikes-civilian-deaths
Various examples
What the word thinks, a round up
What 4 key leaders think (implying they are hypocritical)
A new non aligned movement?
Also noted in the Introduction, see (Note; Hypocrisy?)
Hubris Syndrome described by David Owen and Jonathan Davidson “extreme hubristic behaviour is a syndrome, constituting a cluster of features (‘symptoms’) evoked by a specific trigger (power), and usually remitting when power fades. ‘Hubris syndrome’ is seen as an acquired condition, and therefore different from most personality disorders which are traditionally seen as persistent throughout adulthood.
The key concept is that hubris syndrome is a disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years and with minimal constraint on the leader”
Brain, Volume 132, Issue 5, May 2009, Pages 1396–1406,
Quoted in The Last Days of Hitler: The Classic Account of Hitler's Fall from Power, Hugh Trevor Roper, Chapter 2, Hitler in Defeat, note. 104 (Google Books).
I know Roper’s reputation was tarnished when he was taken in by the forged Hitler Diaries but this appears to be real quote an is revealing of the place minds can get to.
It wasn't the quote I was looking for, I remember reading that Goering looked on the destruction and welcomed the bombs because the German people had shown themselves as unfit by losing the war but have been unable to track down them reference.
Impressionistic portrait of these tactics in Oh Diarism II by Adam Curtis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UstNBrmJFc
Profile of Vladislav Surkov who is credited with devising and masterfully using them
This sounds like something that could have been written in the last month “a slouching stumble through mud and snow by frightened, ill-fed Russian conscripts… The Russian attack, initially in staggering disarray but then increasingly organized and brutal…a merciless conflict that killed tens of thousands of people, mostly civilians — but also the end of Russia’s liberal dream”.
In fact it is from a NY Times article by Andrew Higgins writing in 2019 looking back on the First Chechen War; https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/world/europe/photos-chechen-war-russia.html
They can be read about here and are presented straight forwardly
Ukraine: How might the war end? Five scenarios, James Landale, Diplomatic correspondent, 3rd March
If we are serious about balancing ends and means, there are implications for our defence posture as well as our foreign policy. This could be the subject of another paper
As noted, the nuclear trip wire is too low; we have no depth of conventional forces and so have created a situation where tactical nuclear weapons are deployed. A full-scale war is going on under the cover of (using the implicit threat) of nuclear response to interference. It may be that nuclear deterrence only seems to deter Armageddon, and it might not do that with any certainty, that being the case should we get rid of it?
Sweden has already decided to ramp up its conventional military, such action helps lower the nuclear threshold.
- The very idea of a tactical nuclear weapon is crass. Given thermobaric bombs, hypersonic missiles, drones and targeting technology, they just are massively too destructive to be of used on the battlefield so it becomes imaginable that NATO could give a clear and unequivocal statement that it will never engage in the tactical use of nuclear weapons.
- Yes they are also illegal weapons of mass destruction, but it is practicality that will make them obsolete so that the right thing may be done for (arguably) the wrong reasons though I am sure the moral high ground will be claimed if this is how it turns out
- NATO could also strengthen its commitment never to be the first to use strategic nuclear weapons and recommit itself to deterrence. The removal of ambiguity is necessary to make a MAD work at all; whether anyone surviving a first strike would be willing to launch the assured destruction is immaterial – as they say in business if you need to consult the contract you have already failed.
Balancing ends and means is a necessary discipline under any circumstances, but isn't easy. I discuss difficulty of balancing ends and means here
https://brianfishhope.com/index.php/on-power/ends-and-means
Putting it in the context of the use of power here
https://brianfishhope.com/index.php/part-3-consider/on-power
As a citizen I want our leaders to step up to the plate when it comes to the UN but am under no illusions.
I agree with Fergal Keane; "In reality, there has never been a golden age of post-war peace guided by international diplomacy. The big powers have not fought an apocalyptic nuclear war but millions have died in wars big and small - in Korea, Algeria, Congo, Cambodia, Vietnam, Algeria, Indonesia, Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and many other battlegrounds. Some of those wars have been - at least partly - proxy conflicts between superpowers. More than 4,000 UN peacekeepers have lost their lives in different conflict zones trying to protect civilians and act as a buffer between warring parties."
Ukraine, the UN and history's greatest broken promise, Fergal Keane
This is an extreme version of the long standing but now social media fed, populist staple “something must be done”. An emotional response ignoring the hard thinking needed to balance ends and means, and at least do no harm by avoiding unintended consequences.
Think of it as an extreme case of a very common problem; after interviews where all the candidates are unsuitable or poor do you pick the best of a bad bunch because someone must be appointed, or go through the process again or even have a rethink?
Friction is the term used by Carl von Clausewitz in On War (Book 1, chapter 7) for example "activity in war is movement in a resistant medium"
It can be found here https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/TOC.htm#a
He also noted that once a war is undertaken whatever the end, the only means is to fight – and each side competes to harm the others ability to do so - war is therefore not a very flexible tool for achieving a political objective by other means
This is a very short expression of the idea. In Axelrod’s book it was called Tit-for-Tat. That is also an expression in common usage and carries a lot of baggage (cultural and biblical including revenge and vendetta) to avoid this baggage and get closer to Axelrod’s intent I use the term reciprocity.
It is still actively debated and was originally more developed in
The Evolution of Cooperation, Robert Axelrod, Penguin, 1990, ISBN: 978-0140124958
https://brianfishhope.com/index.php/on-power/circumspect-use
It could be argued that its approach is contingent, the only thing it can do. This could be true in terms of the fighting )I don't have the evidence to judge) but keeping the negotiation channel open is clearly a deliberate choice; others in the same position have acted differently.
I also remember reading a statement that Boris Johnson had expressed a concern that the Ukraine might give in too easily, but I can no longer find the reference, it might explain his eagerness to visit in person.
Ad Bellum
- Just cause; no
- Last resort; no
- Proper authority; The war was no doubt authorised by the Russian government. This only counts as a tick box. If one takes the view that a war of aggression is illegal following that order is not a defence, therefore the war could be said to lack right authority as well
- Right intention; no
- Reasonable chance of success; no as it turns out to date, probably a surprise to those who launched it
In Bellum
- Discrimination; no
- Proportionality; no
- Individual responsibility; no
Post Bellum
Expecting reasonable terms from Russia is the triumph of hope over expectation and President Zolensy is to be congratulated and supported in keeping the lines of communication open
A civil war is simply a contest over the rightful owner of sovereignty, and we can look at sovereignty as the right to hold the monopoly of power, usually the right to kill. I say usually because this is not the place for a long digression on the US constitution and the right to bear arms, suffice to say that it is the only the states who are able to lawfully execute people
Uprising, insurgency or guerrilla campaigns may fail on a number of grounds, right authority and likelihood of success in particular, but also on tactics applying proportionality and military targets.
BBC article; Ukraine, the UN and history's greatest broken promise, Fergal Keane, 9 April 2023
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 by a US-led coalition polarised opinion “The then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan would later call the invasion illegal. "You reap what you sow - and what you sow includes your own double standards," he says.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61021862
Although the suspension of Russia from the UN human rights council is a welcome small step in the right direction – again note the 24 against and 94 abstentions.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/07/russia-suspended-un-human-rights-council-ukraine
The point about all this is not that Turkeys will vote for Christmas (give up the veto) but that there are ways to reform which can circumvent the security council veto
Just suppose a power that isn’t a great power any more could take the lead; the symbolism of Johnson in Kiev may be powerful, imagine then the symbolism if he’d accompanied Volodymir Zolensky to the UN and supported calls for reform putting the UK seat on the Security Council on the agenda; a post Brexit global Britain that we could all get behind.
There is (perhaps) a deep irony in the fact that The West has been deregulating and undermining all the post WW2 international institutions (not just the UN) because it was the driving force in creating them, and it has blatantly used UN resolutions to give it cover for armed interventions up to now.
Arguably now the West needs the UN it find itself unable or unwilling to use the UN as a driving force for action and more vigorous opposition to a straightforward war of aggression which is clearly illegal (there are 4 internationally recognised crimes; against humanity, war crimes, genocide and war of aggression).
European Peace seems as fragile as ever, Kevin Connolly, BBC News 5 March 2022 – as well as being another observer who sees tectonic plates shifting (see What is going on here) he usefully lists early examples of re-armament by unlikely countries Finland and Sweden (because they were Neutral), Germany (because of its history) and the Dutch (because they are notorious in NATO for military weakness and inefficiency)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60622772
Finland and Sweden look likely to be joining NATO, widely covered on 11 April 2022
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-sweden-set-join-nato-soon-summer-times-2022-04-10/
In this crisis we seem to have very low expectation of the UN, we shrug and say, ‘well Russia has a veto; we cannot do anything; the UN is broken’. Really?I’m not at all convinced that this is impossible, it’s a matter that requires the sort of political vision and will that seem to be in such short supply these days.
The Nuremberg declaration identified 4 crimes (aggression, war crime, crimes against humanity and genocide). Aggression is the key here – a case should be made that Russia has forfeited its right to a permanent seat on the security council by launching a war of aggression.
Perhaps this would re-open the debate about other members of the Security Council. Britain and France are permanent members of the Security Council because they are ex-colonial world powers, surely it is time for this to be given up and then perhaps the EU could take up a place. Russia would not need to feel so humiliated if it was in the company of other ex-world powers. Non-aligned and sceptical powers may be persuaded to act against Russia (or abstain, to allow others to do so) if their way to better representation in the UN was to open up. The point is it doesn’t have to be easy, the UN is the only institution we have and we are simply not thinking creatively enough about balancing ends and means.
The article by Fergal Keane, already quoted, also covers some reform proposals for the UN and International Law by Phillip Sands QC and Professor Mukesh Kapila
On BBCR4 World at One 11th March Max Hastings expressed the hope that there are cool heads working out what to do.
The sanctions strategy is flawed. To defeat Putin, you have to know how the Kremlin works, Olga Chyzh . She researches political violence and repressive regimes, and is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto
Since this article was published when sanctions were supposed to be targeting the oligarchs there is an increasing focus on stopping oil flows the revenue from which is paying for the war, just as oil revenues are allowing Saudi Arabia to lead a war in Yemen
The role of oil and coal in autocratic power is rounded up in this article; Putin’s war shows autocracies and fossil fuels go hand in hand. Here’s how to tackle both, Bill McKibben 11 April
The sanctions strategy is flawed. To defeat Putin, you have to know how the Kremlin works, Olga Chyzh . She researches political violence and repressive regimes, and is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto
Since this article was published when sanctions were supposed to be targeting the oligarchs there is an increasing focus on stopping oil flows the revenue from which is paying for the war, just as oil revenues are allowing Saudi Arabia to lead a war in Yemen
The role of oil and coal in autocratic power is rounded up in this article; Putin’s war shows autocracies and fossil fuels go hand in hand. Here’s how to tackle both, Bill McKibben 11 April
We aren’t going after Russian oligarchs in the right way. Here’s how to do it, Robert Reich 9 March 2022
Ranking varies by what you measure
- By GDP gives a top 5 of US, China, Japan, Germany, India (UK and France come in 5 and 6 followed by Brazil, Russia is 11)
- By population gives a top 5 of China, India, US, Indonesia, Pakistan (Brazil at 6, Russia comes in at 9, GB at 21)
- By GDP per capita give an intriguing result of Luxemburg, Macau, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland (Ireland is 6 US is 8, UK is 25 and Russia is 64)
Data on Worldometer https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
Great Britain no longer cuts it on any of these.
The US constitution sought to balance population and state power, The House of Representatives is based on population, the Senate has 2 seats per state.
Bidens decision on aircraft
Czech proposal on tanks
c 11th April it has gone ahead, is this NATO approved or an independent action - the Czeck republic does not have a land border so delivery will involve others.
See also the European dissenters who ally with Putin
I cannot help but note (even more irony) that through NATO’s Article 5 my government may be obliged to fight for Hungary which continues its lurch towards authoritarianism but feels unable to help Ukraine.
Much like the way the 13th Amendment was passed in the US
Embedded harshness in home office
Plight of refugees in the British Isles compared to other countries
Its not just a security failure with a nuclear threat that make it a world problem.
Misha Glenny reviewing new book The Age of the Strongman by Gideon Rachman draws out some ripples
"In the past month the price of soya has increased 10%, making the widespread illegal deforestation under Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, even more lucrative than before. Brazil is blaming the problems with the supply of fertiliser not on Russia but on western sanctions, which were imposed without Brasília being consulted."
“The rise in the price of a number of food staples – including wheat, sunflower oil and ingredients used in fertiliser – has already led many governments to hit the panic button. Egypt, with 100 million people, is scrambling to secure dwindling supplies, as are equally populous countries such as Bangladesh and Indonesia.”
Ad Bellum
- Just cause; yes
- Last resort; no
- Proper authority; no, NATO is not under attack
- Right intention; not if it is to prolong the war using Ukraine to do the fighting, nor if it wants regime change
- Reasonable chance of success; no the west doesn't have the forces