WAR

"My subject is War, and the pity of War" (Wilfred Owen)

War is a state of widespread conflict between states, organizations or relatively large groups of people, which is characterized by the use of lethal violence between combatants of upon civilians. It is estimated that during the 20th Century between 167 and 188 million humans died as a result of war.

A common perception of war is a series of military campaigns between at least two opposing sides involving a dispute over sovereignty, territory, resources, religion or other issues. A war said to liberate an occupied country is sometimes characterized as a "war of liberation", while a war between internal elements of a state is a civil war (originally a line from the Odes (III.2.13) by the Roman lyric poet Horace. The line translates: "It is sweet and proper to die for one's country").

<-video about the place of combat in Bakhmut.

The Paradoxes of War teaches us to understand that war is not only a normal part of human existence but is arguably one of the most important factors in making us who we are. War is both a natural expression of common human emotions and interactions and a constitutive part of how we cohere as groups. That is, war is paradoxically an expression of our basest animal nature and the exemplar of our most vaunted and valued civilized virtues. War is both 'natural' instincts and a social creation involving the imposition of organization and authority structures ->>    

 

The just war theory (Latin: bellum iustum) is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics that aims to ensure that a war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. It has been studied by military leaders, theologians, ethicists and policymakers. The criteria are split into two groups: jus ad bellum ("right to go to war") and jus in bello ("right conduct in war"). The first group of criteria concerns the morality of going to war, and the second group of criteria concerns the moral conduct within war. There have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory (jus post bellum) dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. The just war theory postulates the belief that war, while it is terrible but less so with the right conduct, is not always the worst option. Important responsibilities, undesirable outcomes, or preventable atrocities may justify war.

Opponents of the just war theory may either be inclined to a stricter pacifist standard (proposing that there has never been nor can there ever be a justifiable basis for war) or they may be inclined toward a more permissive nationalist standard (proposing that a war need only to serve a nation's interests to be justifiable). In many cases, philosophers state that individuals do not need to be plagued by a guilty conscience if they are required to fight. A few philosophers ennoble the virtues of the soldier while they also declare their apprehensions for war itself. A few, such as Rousseau, argue for insurrection against oppressive rule.

 

common security and defence policy | 2023 Israel-Hamas war | human rights | the war and the future | Statement of the heads of state or government, meeting in Versailles, on the Russian military aggression against Ukraine, 10 March 2022 | Morality in the Atomic Age | NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON: SAY NO! | Afghanistan | World Wars | Napoleonic wars | the Paradoxes of War | DULCE ET DECORUM EST

 

 


The Arab Israelian conflict /

2023 Israel–Hamas war

 
To refute "the notion that organized human violence is biologically determined, the Seville Statement on Violence was designed. The statement was adopted by an international meeting of scientists, convened by the Spanish National Commission for UNESCO, in Seville, Spain, on 16 May 1986 and subsequently adopted by UNESCO at the twenty-fifth session of the General Conference on 16 November 1989. The statement contains five core ideas. These ideas are:
  1. "It is scientifically incorrect to say that we have inherited a tendency to make war from our animal ancestors."
  2. "It is scientifically incorrect to say that war or any other violent behaviour is genetically programmed into our human nature."
  3. "It is scientifically incorrect to say that in the course of human evolution there has been a selection for aggressive behaviour more than for other kinds of behaviour."
  4. "It is scientifically incorrect to say that humans have a 'violent brain'."
  5. "It is scientifically incorrect to say that war is caused by 'instinct' or any single motivation."

The statement concludes: "Just as 'wars begin in the minds of men', peace also begins in our minds. The same species who invented war is capable of inventing peace. The responsibility lies with each of us".

 

THE WAR AND THE FUTURE  

THE WAR and the FUTURE

 

 

Russia's ruthless medieval aggression:

At dawn of 24 February 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion against the sovereign country Ukraine. Russian military vehicles crossed the Ukrainian border in several places.

It seems no exaggeration to say that it is a further continuation of an attack on liberal democracy

 

 

18 November 2017, in Amsterdam the annual Nexus Conference took place with as its theme ‘The Last Revolution’, a reference to Trotsky’s belief that the Russian Revolution, a hundred years ago by this point, would be the last. For the afternoon debate on the subject ‘the world of freedom’, Aleksandr Dugin and Antony Blinken sat together at a round table, along with other speakers. Dugin, famous as Putin’s philosopher and whisperer, said the following ->


Statement of the heads of state or government, meeting in Versailles, on the Russian military aggression against Ukraine, 10 March 2022  

1. Two weeks ago Russia brought war back to Europe. Russia’s unprovoked and unjustified military aggression against Ukraine grossly violates international law and the principles of the UN Charter and undermines European and global security and stability. It is inflicting unspeakable suffering on the Ukrainian population. Russia, and its accomplice Belarus, bear full responsibility for this war of aggression and those responsible will be held to account for their crimes, including for indiscriminately targeting civilians and civilian objects. In this respect we welcome the decision of the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to open an investigation. We call for the safety and security of Ukraine’s nuclear facilities to be ensured immediately with the assistance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. We demand that Russia ceases its military action and withdraws all forces and military equipment from the entire territory of Ukraine immediately and unconditionally, and fully respects Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence within its internationally recognised borders.

2. We commend the people of Ukraine for their courage in defending their country and our shared values of freedom and democracy. We will not leave them alone. The EU and its Member States will continue to provide coordinated political, financial, material and humanitarian support. We are committed to provide support for the reconstruction of a democratic Ukraine once the Russian onslaught has ceased. We are determined to increase even further our pressure on Russia and Belarus. We have adopted significant sanctions and remain ready to move quickly with further sanctions.

3. Countless people are fleeing the war in Ukraine. We offer temporary protection to all war refugees from Ukraine. We commend European countries, notably at the borders with Ukraine, for showing immense solidarity in hosting Ukrainian war refugees. The EU and its Member States will continue to show solidarity and provide humanitarian, medical and financial support to all refugees and the countries hosting them. We call for funds to be made available without delay through a swift adoption of the proposal on Cohesion’s Action for Refugees in Europe (CARE) and through ReactEU. We call on Russia to fully abide by its obligations under international humanitarian law. It must ensure safe and unhindered humanitarian access to the victims and internally displaced persons in Ukraine, and allow safe passage for those civilians who want to leave.

4. The European Council acknowledged the European aspirations and the European choice of Ukraine, as stated in the Association Agreement. On 28 February 2022, exercising the right of Ukraine to choose its own destiny, the President of Ukraine submitted the application of Ukraine to become a member of the European Union. The Council has acted swiftly and invited the Commission to submit its opinion on this application in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties. Pending this and without delay, we will further strengthen our bonds and deepen our partnership to support Ukraine in pursuing its European path. Ukraine belongs to our European family.

5. The Council has invited the Commission to submit its opinions on the applications of the Republic of Moldova and Georgia.

 

  Morality in the Atomic Age
Author CRT Admin, August 6, 2020, Categories Commentary

Seventy-five years ago today, the American B-29 Superfortress bomber, the Enola Gay, piloted by Colonel Paul Tibbets, opened its bomb bay doors and dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, initiating humanity to atomic warfare.

President Harry Truman made the decision to drop the bomb and then a second one three days later on Nagasaki. I have been told that he chose such destruction in place of an American invasion of Japan, which was predicted to result in massive civilian casualties and damage in town after town and city after city and great losses to American ground forces.

One of the founders of the Caux Round Table, Ryuzaburo Kaku, was in Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 when the second bomb was dropped. I once listened to Kaku-san at Mountain House in Caux, Switzerland describe his experience that day. He had been in a basement when the bomb detonated. On going up to the street, Kaku was amazed first at the silence – total silence, not even the sound of birds. Then he looked around – buildings destroyed – no people, not one – in sight.

His response to his survivor’s guilt – why me? What am I to do with my life to deserve it? – was to be exemplary in working for a higher vision in his business career with Canon Inc. He took a Japanese concept – kyosei or symbiosis – and developed it into a global ethic of business responsibility for stakeholders. You can read his article on kyosei in the Harvard Business Review here.

We live with the threat of nuclear war still today. An arms race between the U.S. and China appears to be underway. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. Israel is reliably reported to have nuclear weapons. Many worry that Iran, no friend of Israel, will develop nuclear weapons. North Korea, presumably, is very close to having a small nuclear arsenal.

For those who advocate a principled commitment to the moral use of power, what might the date August 6 portend? First, that a terrible war, a nuclear war, is possible. Our moral powers of self-restraint can fail of their purpose and let a war happen. More importantly, moral purpose, devoutly pursued, can lead to war: fiat iusticia ruat caelum – “Let there be justice though Heaven falls” or alternatively, fiat iusticia et pereat mundus – ”Let there be justice though the world perish.”

Morality too, taken to extremes, becomes cruel and destructive. Morality can become a heuristic figure of mind, a kind of cognitive bias, calling forth rationalizations, justifications, excuses. Ethics, perhaps, a bit more utilitarian, balancing considerations of self and other, should be placed in the scales of justice.

In an age when atomic war is possible, hard thinking about conflict resolution, alternate forms of warfare, putting brakes on escalation, insistence on good governance, on a balance of interests and of coalitions of the willing to forestall the dangers of going to extremes are warranted.

 

Nuclear armageddon: SAY NO!  

WE APPEAL, AS HUMAN BEINGS, TO HUMAN BEINGS: REMEMBER YOUR
HUMANITY AND FORGET THE REST. IF YOU CAN DO SO, THE WAY LIES OPEN FOR A NEW PARADISE, IF YOU CANNOT, THERE LIES BEFORE YOU THE RISK OF 'UNIVERSAL DEATH'.

'IMAGINE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON. THERE IS JUST ONE ALTERNATIVE TO PREVENT UNIVERSAL DEATH': SAY NO!


Numerous of artists carried out this thought. Short after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs it was said
;

IF MAN SAY NOT NO, IF YOU SAY NOT NO, THEN THE LAST HUMAN BEING WILL WANDER WITH TEARED INTESTINES AND POISEND LUNGS, WITH NO ANSWERS AND LONELY UNDER THE POISEND BURNING HOT SUN AND UNDER SHAKED STARS, LONELY AMOUNG THE ENDLESS MASS GRAVES AND THE COLD IDOLS OF THE GIGANTIC BRICKS IN THE EMPTY CITIES, THE LAST HUMAN BEING, WITHERED, INSANE, ABUSING, COMPLAINING AND HIS TERRIBLE LAMENT WHY WILL UNHEARD DISAPPEAR IN THE STEPPE, BLOW THROUGH THE SHARP RUINS, TRICKLED AWAY IN THE RUINS OF THE CHURCHES, DASH AGAINST HIGH BUNKERS, FELL IN POOLS OF BLOOD, UNHEARD, NO ANSWER, THE LAST CRY OF THE ANIMALOF THE LAST ANIMAL: MAN.

Russell-Einstein Manifesto  

HIROSHIMA PEACE MEMORIAL MUSEUM

Two of the twentieth century’s most famous intellectuals, philosopher Bertrand Russell and physicist Albert Einstein (who died several months before the text was released), issued this manifesto in London on July 9, 1955 to warn the world about the dire consequences of a nuclear war. They urged peaceful resolution to international conflict to avoid “universal death.” 

How you can stop nuclear weapons:

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) is a coalition of non-governmental organizations in one hundred countries promoting adherence to and implementation of the United Nations nuclear weapon ban treaty. This landmark global agreement was adopted in New York on 7 July 2017.

 

 

Nuclear terrorism is called as one of the greatest threats to international security. This gives reason for summits on nuclear security with the aim to ask for the security of nuclear materials and atttention to avoid such threats. The summits are dominated by making political appointments, on results obtained and to the future.

How Fragile/Stable is the Global Nuclear Order? Is the global nuclear order more stable, or alternatively more fragile, than it was at the beginning of the 21st Century?  Is the web of agreements, institutions, and actions that has constrained the spread and use of nuclear weapons be as tenuous today as the political landscape of the Middle East was in December 2010—when most intelligence agencies, investors, and experts expected the decade ahead to be more or less like the decade that had proceeded it?  Could it be as fragile as the Euro is today?

Because of the NSS's, a timeline was prepared, that provides a comprehensive overview of key events in nuclear history. It traces the long legacy of nuclear security threats and policies and puts these developments in a broader context. Events covered span a wide range of fields, including scientific developments, nuclear power, (non-)proliferation efforts and safety and security issues.

In the context of the third Nuclear Security Summit in 2014, there were also meetings in which integral and specific attention was given to the theme and agenda of the NSS. Internationally renowned experts took care of keynotes and there were colleges 'Nuclear Security & Diplomacy', ' Nuclear Security & Global Governance' and ' Nuclear Security & Decision Making. However, for purposes of assessment, the following should be considered:

10 trendlines undermining the global nuclear order

  • relentless advance of science and technology and accelerating diffusion of nuclear know-how

  • growing specter of "megaterrorism"

  • North Korea's expanding nuclear weapons program

  • Iran's success in crossing successive red lines as it develops its nuclear weapons options

  • Pakistan's ticking nuclear time bomb

  • eroding confidence in non-profileration regime

  • mounting evidence for those who believe nuclear weapons enhance their security

  • continental risk of "loose nukes"; weaponsand materials

  • potential "renaissance" in nuclear energy production

  • wildcards: failure to imagine ünknown unknowns"

 

factors stabilizing the global nuclear order

  • how many nuclear weapons states 25 years ago? How many today?

  • Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction: Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Russia

  • Nuclear Security Summits: Washington, Seoul, and The Hague

  • 52, 38, 25, X

  • Al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan decimated

  • Iran: best prospects for agreement in a decade

  • resilience and adaptation of guardians of the global nuclear ordr

  • Ukraine as an example

 




 

  Afghanistan
After the movie at the Aspen Institute
RESTREPO

The ASPEN Institute showed a frontline report, named after the soldier who died on the outpost in the Korengal Valley (KOP) in Afghanistan. Jung, the reporter questioned what exactly a soldier is doing in combat.

"They weren't political at all. They're so focused on their job in the notoriously dangerous combat zone. It was difficult and there were demands for complicated technology. The stories are very personal: about confusion that the ghost will take over, about nobody wants foreign troops in his country, about it is not a pretty picture in the head'.

 
KIDNAPPING

During Washington Ideas Forum (WIF) 2010, international and national security issues were on the table. New York Times reporter David Rohde recounted his kidnapping by the Taliban in harrowing detail.

NYT: 7 Months, 10 Days in Captivity: "The car’s engine roared as the gunman punched the accelerator and we crossed into the open Afghan desert.

I was seated in the back between two Afghan colleagues who were accompanying me on a reporting trip when armed men surrounded our car and took us hostage.

Another gunman in the passenger seat turned and stared at us as he gripped his Kalashnikov rifle.

No one spoke.

I glanced at the bleak landscape outside — reddish soil and black boulders as far as the eye could see — and feared we would be dead within minutes.

 
24 December 1979

Soviet tanks
roll
into
Afghanistan

 

  World Wars
In the Treaty of Versailles (1919) the winners imposed relatively hard conditions on Germany and recognized the new states (such as PolandCzechoslovakiaHungary, Austria, Yugoslavia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) created in central Europe out of the defunct German, Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires, supposedly on the basis of national self-determination. Most of those countries engaged in local wars, the largest of them being the Polish-Soviet War (1919-1921). In the following decades, fear of Communism and the economic Depression of 1929-1933 led to the rise of extreme nationalist governments - sometimes loosely grouped under the category of 'Fascism' - in Italy (1922), Germany (1933), Spain (after a civil war ending in 1939) and other countries such as Hungary.
13 Sep 1943, Mr Churchill was mobbed by the crowd at the City Hall where he received an official welcome. Mr Roosevelt went to Ottawa where he addressed Parliament.

After the relative peace of most of the 19th century, the rivalry between European powers exploded in 1914, when
World War I started. On one side were Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkiye (the Central Powers/Triple Alliance), while on the other side stood Serbia and the Triple Entente - the loose coalition of France, the United Kingdom and Russia, which were joined by Italy in 1915 and by the United States in 1917.

Despite the defeat of Russia in 1917 (the war was one of the major causes of the Russian Revolution, leading to the formation of the communist Soviet Union), the Entente finally prevailed in the autumn of 1918. During this period, Germany began the systematic genocide of over 11 million people, including the majority of the Jews of Europe, in the Holocaust. Even as German persecution grew, over the next year the tide was turned and the Germans started to suffer a series of defeats, for example in the siege of Stalingrad and at Kursk.

 

Napoleonic wars    
Napoleon Bonaparte was France's most successful general in the Revolutionary wars, having conquered large parts of Italy and forced the Austrians to sue for peace. In 1799 he returned from Egypt and on 18 Brumaire (9 November) overthrew the government, replacing it with the Consulate, in which he was First Consul. On 2 December 1804, after a failed assassination plot he crowned himself Emperor. In 1805 Napoleon planned to invade Britain, but a renewed British alliance with Russia and Austria (Third Coalition), forced him to turn his attention towards the continent, while at the same time failure to lure the superior British fleet away from the English Channel, ending in a decisive French defeat at the Battle of Trafalgar on 21 October put an end to hopes of an invasion of Britain

 

  The Paradoxes of War
War is a product of both 'natural' instincts and social creation involving the imposition of organization and authority structures. Causes of war may be described as material, cultural, and psychological. At the heart of war is the product of us - them dynamics. On the battlefield, the soldiers inner landscape, we find blood, toil, tears, sweat, fear, endurance, and atrocies. Warriors are taught a set of values of which duty and honour are fundamental. These are taught through the imposition of discipline. Military values of camaraderie, leadership, honor and courage make the ideal soldier, who may joy the battle.

 

War of armies are about organized violence, the managerial and technological development necessary to culminate in total wars.

Already in Ancient and Feudal times, armies were structured: stipendiary and contract, state-commission, popular conscript, and volunteer-technical, operational, logistical and technological components.

 
The progress of the battle depends on the war of a) the square (phalanx, legion, cavalry, gunpowder and the tercio) and b) war of the lines and industrial war.

Wars help build states and nationalism, involves societal survival and social aspects: strategic bombing, affects race, class and gender, genocide, development of citizenship and democratic demands. Wars appeal to taxation and national wealth, and vulnerability of monuments.

(Course 'The Paradoxes of War', MOOC Princeton)

 

DULCE ET DECORUM EST  
Wilfred Edward Salter Owen MC (18 March 1893 – 4 November 1918) was an English poet and soldier, one of the leading poets of the First World War. His shocking, realistic war poetry on the horrors of trenches and gas warfare was heavily influenced by his friend and mentor Siegfried Sassoon, and stood in stark contrast both to the public perception of war at the time and to the confidently patriotic verse written by earlier war poets such as Rupert Brooke. Among his best-known works – most of which were published posthumously – are "Dulce et Decorum est", "Insensibility", "Anthem for Doomed Youth", "Futility" and "Strange Meeting".

DULCE ET DECORUM EST

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime.—
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.In all my dreams before my helpless sight
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin,
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.