War Really is Hell

The Ukrainian war is nearing its two-month anniversary. It is still too early to predict how this will play out. Russia is unlikely to simply throw up its hands, withdraw behind its borders, and say, “Never mind.” On the other hand, the Ukrainians will not go quietly into the night. While there have been negotiations, it is hard to fathom what is being discussed, since Zelenskyy has been clear that he will accept only complete withdrawal, and Putin is unlikely to accede to that embarrassment.  

What we learned to date has been confirmation about the nature of war. This conflict has been a microcosm of the inevitabilities of armed confrontations. As mundane as these lessons seem to be, it is worth going over them again because, as often as they have been confirmed, humans still don’t seem to grasp them.  

There has been a lot of talk recently about whether the Russian forces have committed war crimes in the midst of their invasion, but that focus misses the point. The invasion itself is a crime. When the first boot stepped over the proverbial line, there was a violation of the canons which govern human beings, or, at least, should. I don’t care whether there is a statute that can be identified, or a common law doctrine that can be cited. By undertaking to kill people, and that is what war is, with no overt provocation, the Russians deviated from what is justifiable. No ifs, ands, or buts. 

The Russians will no doubt counter that the invasion was permissible under some version of the preventative war doctrine, so recently espoused by the Bush administration to justify its invasion of Iraq. But reliance on that doctrine and that war is misplaced, because the Iraqi war was a similar crime, even if no one was ever held accountable. There can be no rationalization for initiating a war against a country that has not undertaken specific, substantial acts of violence against the invading country. Being afraid that they might do so is no excuse for murder.  

Once a war starts, atrocities will happen. They will be committed by the aggressors, and they will be committed by the defenders. Atrocities are endemic to war. The stress of the situation, the rhetoric that surrounds war, and the chaos of the battlefield make them inevitable. History gives prominence to the atrocities of the losers, but that doesn’t erase the actions of the victors. Atrocities occur on both sides of a conflict.  

A corollary of the inevitability of atrocities is that non-combatants will get hurt, badly. Today’s military strategists like to boast that precision weapons will allow them to limit civilian casualties. Maybe they’re right, in that they could kill a lot more ordinary people if they targeted them. But it doesn’t mean that civilians won’t be directly, and devastatingly, impacted.   

There is even more of a chance of civilian deaths as plans go awry. Frustration will mount. The military will be subject to increased pressure from the politicians. The only alternative will be to escalate attacks, which means increased disregard for anything but destruction of people and property. The civilian deaths that have occurred, and will continue to occur, are wholly and absolutely predictable.  

This certainty of escalation is especially troubling in the Ukraine. The politician pressuring the military is Putin, who has put his entire legacy on line with this invasion. It is clearly very personal to him. I am sure that he does not see failure as an option. There is no telling what that will prompt him to authorize.  

While atrocities and escalation may be predictable, nothing more about the war will be. The best laid plans might as well be shredded paper thrown to the winds. Tolstoy, in War and Peace, breathtakingly depicts the chaos and confusion that is war. He overtly mocks historians who clean it up afterwards and make it seem as if everything that happened was part of a grand strategy by Generals. What was true in the 19^th Century is true today. 

The events in Ukraine are a striking example of the uncertainty of the course of a war. We can view maps showing the battle lines, and the movement of troops, but they really do not reflect the incredibly fluid situation on the ground, especially as troops move into cities and neighborhoods. The Generals will make their plans, and the soldiers will go where they are told, but what happens from there is anyone’s guess. 

Finally, as uncertain as the outcome and progress of war may be, the ramifications are even harder to predict. We are still living with the aftermath of WWII, which arose from the unintended consequences of WWI. Did anyone discuss the possibility of ISIS in the lead-up to the Iraqi war? Were people attuned to the emergence of the Taliban when Russia invaded Afghanistan, and we decided to arm the Afghan rebels?  

It is impossible to know the long-term effects of the Ukraine war. Even if the war ended today, how would we move forward in a world where the leader of the 3^rd most powerful nation has been branded a war criminal? What are the economic consequences of the on-going disruption to the flow of Russian energy resources to Europe? Is this invasion going to embolden China in its territorial aspirations? What other scenarios exist that we can’t even envisage?  

I wonder whether Putin thought he could control the direction and impact of this war. Could he be that blind to the lessons that history has taught again and again? Apparently so. I guess that the final confirmation of the nature of war is that many will die due to his blindness. Vlad the Impaler indeed.