By planet War I, the war was permitted by global law as a means of resolving and regulating global disputes, and the ius ad bellum (the law of declaring and conducting war) was considered a natural attribute of the sovereign.
War – according to the thesis Carl von Clausewitz, Prussian general, veteran of Napoleonic Wars, author of the celebrated work “About War” – was considered an extension of politics by another means. The result of the war determined territorial and political status, or even the existence of a state.
After planet War II, the view arose that, with changes in global law and as a consequence of the technological revolution in the field of arms, the traditionally sovereign states' right to war ceased to be an attribute to their subjectivity. This was a process of debellizing global relations. It seemed that as a consequence of the experience of 2 large planet wars and the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, mankind would cease bloodbaths to solve real and imaginary problems. It was suggested that the "Clausewitz era" ended erstwhile and for all.
However, the States retained the right to legitimately usage force in the exercise of the right of individual or collective defence enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. This means that military forces may inactive stay a means of ensuring the safety of states. However, the anticipation of exercising this right has besides been limited by global standards. Firstly, it is simply a case where an attack on the part of another country has been committed against the State, and secondly, the measures taken for self-defense should be communicated to the safety Council and must not limit its competence to take action which it considers essential to reconstruct global peace and security.
It would seem that the regulation of the right to conduct war confirms a widely accepted position in the doctrine of global law, that we are presently dealing with alternatively ius contra bellum, i.e. regulations ordering peaceful (diplomatic) settlement of disputes, without resorting to war. It is only a conclusive measurement (ultima ratio) erstwhile another measures are incapable to supply peace and security. The UN safety Council can so search strength solutions (Article 42 of the UN Charter) and force peace to be restored. In any event, whether self-defense or UN sanctions (authorised by the safety Council) are mandatory ius in bello, or global humanitarian law of armed conflicts.
Things like this would seem obvious. However, after the Cold War, interpretations of the defence of states appeared through preventive and preemptive actions, as well as alleged humanitarian interventions, which complicated the legal and moral justification of the usage of force. Defence war or humanitarian intervention in violation of global law is losing its legitimacy, becoming an intervention and aggressive war. From this perspective, it is hard to get into order over the demolition of Yugoslavia, the attack on Iraq or Afghanistan. It was a “homicidal” expedition, though it was called the American president George W. Bush stigmatized the “crop” states, defending themselves against the invasion of the hegemonic power.
The Polish tradition of strategical thought was rather distant from the usage of offensive war expeditions. Many wars were fought for defence purposes, unfortunately becoming the subject of alien conquests. Paradoxically, Poland with rich anti-war traditions (e.g. the thought of moral disarmament from the interwar period or the plan of Adam Rapacki's non-atomic zone), became a supporter of Western intervention policy utilizing force. Participation in abroad armed operations – in the war in Afghanistan (2002-2003) and Iraq (2003) – led Poland to argue that the most extremist measures, including the usage of large-scale force, could be addressed to address the hard safety problems of the states. So pro-war reasoning flourished.
War for Democracy
Above all, it was the United States with another NATO countries that considered that, in order to justify the promotion of democracy or the protection of human rights, the usage of direct force does not interfere with the current regulations. While during the “cold war” the aim was to prevent the usage of force and thus to start a war, it is possible and justified to kill people present in the name of collective values and peculiar interests.
The drama of Ukraine and the Gaza Strip shows that makiawelism has dispelled all moralism, including those motivated by religion. It turned out that the political goal of the hegemony strategy justifies all, even the most morally reprehensible means. To this end, a doctrine was built that Russia attributed imperial goals to which its territorial expansion leads. Like the mantra, a informing is repeated that Russia will not halt in Ukraine and then attack the states of the North Atlantic alliance. In this way, it is prophesied, in principle, that the war between Russia and NATO is inevitable. Future scripts mix facts with fantasy, and fabrication of political and military pseudo-authorities is considered revealed truths.
In the West, the belief that Russian politics are based on negative emotions became unpredictable and dangerous. So it seems naive to hope to reconstruct stableness between the West and Russia. After all, it must be admitted that the war in Ukraine is simply a war of choice, and so the participating parties may nevertheless quit it. However, there is inactive a deficiency of political will and knowing of the imperative of peace. But what is most crucial from the point of view of the war strategy, the fear of atomic demolition has disappeared, and this dangerously brings the planet closer to disaster on an unimaginable scale.
Professional analyses and forecasts of Russia's behaviour and its strategical doctrine are of no use. It turns out that the leaders and generals of the Natian states, interpreted by American strategists, do not request any cognition to verify the facts. All they had to do was make a message giving up senile reelection. Joe Bidena. It lacked not only logic and common sense, but, above all, courage to keep a small bit of realism. The complete contradictions of the second US presidential candidate's message do not facilitate knowing of the real motives and determination to reconstruct peace.
The coalition nature of western actions supporting the war in Ukraine gives the impression of a "fair" war on behalf of a "community" entitled to defend universal values. In the meantime, no 1 can warrant that, after the triumph of either side of the case, they will take a "better" turn. Who knows what Ukraine is going to be like? Will the “war dictatorship” replace any another form of nationalist autocracy?
In countries bordering on the collapse, which are kept alive with external "drips", there is no chance of building a "model democracy". no of the Polish politicians, while designing a "syllan neighbourhood" with postwar Ukraine, take into account negative scenarios. Greed and naivety obscure “glasses of realism”.
The cynical attitude of Western states...
and decisively Russia in defence of its rations lead to the justification of war as a way to resolve the conflict. We are so faced with the apparent restoration of the right to war, contrary to the erstwhile prohibitions. The most interesting thing is that Russia, based on the arguments of the West, applied even to Kosovo in 1999 and to Iraq in 2003, besides treats this war as "fair". Thus, a "mistakeful wheel" is formed, based on a circumstantial logic in which it is hard to show what is actual and what is false.
The perfidy of the centres calling for an intensification of military production and a forceful fight with Russia is that until recently, they have been called upon to dismantle national states due to the fact that they have a constant temptation to fight each other. A panacea was seen in inclusive transnational structures to destruct wars. It turns out that the European Union has now been harnessed into a chariot of war rivalry and is beginning to "flex muscles", like the old 19th century powers. Without any resistance, it becomes a lever – alongside the North Atlantic alliance – of consolidating the war effort. Objection Viktor Orban In view of this attitude, all another EU notables respect as a dangerous fanatic and a decision distant from the rule of legitimate political consensus.
The recognition of war in Ukraine on the scale of liberation missions and spiritual crusades leads to the separation of politicians from reality, contradicts not only rationality, but besides healthy reason. In the sound of information and pushy propaganda, the rations of conflicted parties are lost, and many perceptive errors make war participants hostages to dogmatized positions.
A Lie in the Ministry of War
In the Ukrainian-Russian War, an highly manipulated public opinion played a immense legitimacy role. We are dealing – not for the first time – with the onset of mass anti-Russian hysteria. Professional lobbying by politicians and the army, as well as the peculiar services of Western states, has made media and expert communities subject not only to pro-war psychosis, but besides premeditatedly justify the request to usage force on a large scale against Russia. The voices of opposition are ignored and even effectively silenced.
For these reasons, the nonsense of war, false strategical assumptions, and the effects of costly operations are no longer in the public opinion. The quest for Western states to defeat Russia with Ukraine is not based on any rational calculation, nor on a far-sighted imagination of what the European order will look like after the end of the war. First of all, no 1 in Russia or Ukraine, and even more so in the European Union and in NATO, can answer questions about what has been achieved through this war and why hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, strengthening supposedly Ukraine. In fact, it becomes a tragic victim, not as much of a war as putting it into its modes.
It is already known present that ending the war will not mean solving many of the problems that led to it. Neither are those of strategical importance relating primarily to the "indivisibility" of the safety of Russia and Ukraine. Or geopolitical, related to Ukraine's departure from Russian curatela towards Western affiliation. Finally, those against a national-ethnic and linguistic background or a average neighbourhood – border control, population movements, economical exchange and others.
It seems that the contagion of amateur politicians that led to the escalation of the conflict will give way to another amateurs, unconvinced of either the sense of war being waged or the value of peace. Disappointment and disappointment in the absence of a clear triumph will sow the grain of further pretenses, rematching and conflict. erstwhile the blood is shed, it will long awaken the desire for revenge and revenge.
Russia has become a favourite Western adversaries, more psychologically-nostalgic than a real threat. It was about uncovering a more or little equivalent opponent for the United States. By the time China began to play an increasingly crucial role, Russia was attributed the desire to revise the monocentric strategy of forces formed after the “cold war”. This is the main motive for trying to weaken it, and even eliminating it from inter-power play.
Due to the affective attitude towards Ukraine, strategical relations between the United States and Russia have been given the character of a sharper conflict than even during the "cold war". At the time, alongside the substitute and peripheral wars, there was a increasing political dialog (from disengagement to détente), and there was no shortage of effective non-blocking intermediaries in the form of neutral and uninvolved states.
Currently, information on their real intentions has ceased to be exchanged, and sanctions policy has practically alienated Russia from Western markets. Obsessions against the background of Russian interference in the home affairs of America and another Western states led to continuous intrigues, and the attribution of extraordinary powers to the president of Russia made him a demon in public messages.
The Russian leader sees extraordinary cunning, cunning and unbridled appetites for the russian states, and especially towards Ukraine, which according to phraseology Zbigniew Brzeziński is simply a "geopolitical pivot", deciding on Russia's imperial character. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be the Eurasian Empire. So it is essential to do everything, as the author of the “Big Chessboard” advocated in 1997, so that Russia in these processes not so much restrained but simply disabled. It's another American cognitive aberration.
The erstwhile course of the Ukrainian-Russian War teaches humility to each side. First of all, regardless of the costs and losses, no of them managed to win this war either in military or information terms. Russia has failed to break the unity of Western societies, but has received large support from the so-called. The remainder of the world, with China and India in the lead. Taking part of Ukraine's territory does not warrant lasting peace, but it ‘neutralises’ it for a long time in efforts to join Western structures. It cannot be overlooked that this is for the benefit of many countries, even very actively supporting Ukraine.
The United States, while facing interior problems, has lost its strategical initiative and is incapable to control this war in specified a way as to reconstruct “fair peace”. They besides do not have a prescription to keep Ukraine under their control in the long term. A comprehensive assessment of the risks, its own interests and strategical capabilities of this power is needed, which is simply a challenge for the fresh presidency.
United Against the West
Unfortunately, the war has led to strengthening the opposition of Russian society to the West. It will take a long time to remove the effects of intense sharing, demoralizing and conflicting people. Anti-Americanism has become a component of Russian political doctrine, which is, in fact, balanced by russophobia in Western countries. It should not surprise anyone that, with specified common attitudes, Western centres will proceed to support the anti-putin opposition, and in turn the Russians will not without satisfaction support the centrifugal and anti-establishment movements in the West, fueling interior feuds and stimulating tensions.
The West, however, is mostly undergoing a phase of deep interior reassessment and not everything allegedly inspired by Moscow translates into social attitudes. It turns out increasingly that Western Europeans and Americans themselves are making rational electoral decisions, opposing the pro-war policies of their governments.
Trump is not Putin's "secret weapon". His supporters are truly tired of America's war rage. And Putin with his nationalist and large-powered ideology has no scruples to support these groups and those candidates on the left or right whose declarations and election programs echo Russian interests. This is the paradox of communicative and cognitive wars, that it is never known which side will endure defeat and which will win, especially in the long term, victory.
In order to end the war, it is essential to reconstruct objectivity in the assessment of the interests of all parties involved. Fictional peace talks, serving propaganda only Ukrainian rations do not bring the conflict to an end. Rather, they favour concealing and blurring uncomfortable truths. That is why it is so crucial to awaken societies in all the countries active in the conflict to halt indulgence by various fraudsters, declaring the defence of peace and building safety through war.
Prof. Stanisław Bielen
Poland, No. 31-32 (28.07-4.08.2024)
