The evening started with a typical icebreaker.
G: “The Cold War is back on the menu.”
C: “And it can’t very well be said to be ideological this time.”
G: “… and hence, we can conclude that it was never ideological.”
C: “It was always about us versus them.”
G: “For days I have been trying to wrap my head around international law and ICJ rulings. The larger pattern is that the law would rather have someone suffer an acceptable grievance than escalating violence.”
M: “That doesn’t sound all that bad.”
G: “World War II learned us the lesson that if everybody stood on their right, war was inevitable. At our core, we are suspicious of other tribes. Since the feeling is mutual, we easily interpret our neighbours’ actions as premeditated malevolence. The law then forbids us to react prematurely. We cannot retain first strike advantage.”
C: “I have read about this. It’s called the .. test.. "
G: “The Caroline Test, from an 1837 incident between Britain, Canada and USA which almost came to blows. American sympathisers sailed provisions on the Caroline to a Canadian enclave of rebels that fought for changes in Britain’s governmental system in Canada. The British set the ship on fire and pushed it down Niagara Falls. It was to avoid war that incumbent Secretary of State Daniel Webster formulated the principle that self-defence requires a threat that is »instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.«”
C: “This precludes the popular anticipatory self-defence.”
G: “It precludes - or at least purports to preclude - a great number of things. Piecemeal attacks or death by a thousand cuts. USA claimed this was what Iran’s assistance to insurgent groups amounted to.”
C: “And Irans attacks on US bases in surrounding countries?”
G: “Apparently illegal as well.”
M: “What is legal?”
G: “First of, looking at the famous article 51 of the UN charter:”
UN CHARTER - ARTICLE 51
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent
right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occursagainst a Member of the United Nations,until the Security Council has taken measuresnecessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
C: “In other words, you can shoot at the invading enemy without asking papa UN, but only until the old folks come home and tells you what to do.”
G: “Well, unsurprisingly there are many military theorists who lean the other direction. For instance this guy from West Point:”
INTERPRETING THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE - MICHAEL N. SCHMITT
As explained in an earlier Articles of War post, I am of the view that Operation Rising Sun had to satisfy the so-called
“last window of opportunity”test for compliance with the necessity criterion of self-defense, especially its imminency component.
G: “Schmitt prefers that line. It isn’t too far from Webster’s Caroline test, “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation” and UN’s court language, except for a slightly more emphasis on deliberation. UN also add in the notion of proportionality, which means you cannot destroy a country for throwing firecrackers at you.”
M: “I will say it right out. Those are laws. They do not necessarily imply fairness.”
Christine and Gerald looked at Miranda.
M: “You know how I prefer to think in much larger terms. You said it yourself: The law is meant to dampen the urge to turn violent. We are a violent species. And we are a paranoid species. We distrust anybody with whom we have not established a direct friendship.”
They kept looking, but were clearly changing gears. Miranda continued.
M: “Can you even begin to imagine what it feels like to feel isolated as a nation? When all you hear from foreign countries and their news agencies and their social media is how hated you are? Russia, Iran and Israel are the well-known examples.
Israel is enjoying all time good relations with the American government, but on a street level, they feel an enormous hurricane of resentment from grassroots activists. Iran… do I even have to explain, and Russia, we all know.”
C: “That is hardly an excuse.”
M: “Excuse would make sense if we were discussing the legality of military actions.”
G: “… But… we were!”
M: “We shouldn’t be. We retreat to those discussions because they make us feel safe. We can orient ourselves in a universe of black and white. Who has transgressed according to shared laws and who kept within bounds.”
C: “No, Miranda, those laws are all we have between us and savagery.”
Even as Christine said it, she could hear her own much too young voice disclose her lack of confidence.
M: “We are not savages. We happen to depend psychologically on believing those around us are savages, since that furnishes us with a handy explanation as to why we can’t treat them as equals.”
G: “You said so yourself. Our species …”
M: “Is aggressive, not savages. There is nothing primitive about aggression. It is a quite sophisticated behaviour.”
C: “We are just three drunk people disagreeing. Make us see your perspective.”
G: “Yes, frankly. Come on, Miranda, we all know Russian and Iranian citizens can feel a bit squeezed under the weight of sanctions. They have a choice: Abide by the rules set forth by the global society.”
M: “What is particularly global about it? Take any selection of articles about both of these countries, and ask yourself what the author stands to gain on an ideological scale by writing what she or he does.”
Christine was first to the keyboard as always.
C: “Okay, let me point you to this very sober website about international law. Just Security. I think I will going to appreciate this site. Here is an article about Russian destructive rhetoric.”
Miranda scrolled down and did some reading.
M: “I know you both want me to admit to the atrocious mentality of the Russians. That would be the wrong framing, though. One example: "
RUSSIA’S ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC AGAINST UKRAINE: A COLLECTION - JUST SECURITY
Russian victory declaration, accidentally published – “The Offensive of Russia and the New World” – RIA Novosti (February 26, 2022, since deleted) [Petr Akopov]
- “There will be no more Ukraine as anti-Russia.”
- Vladimir Putin has asserted a “historic responsibility by deciding not to leave the solution of the Ukrainian question to future generations.”
- Ukraine’s return to Russia will not mean its statehood’s “liquidation”; instead, Ukraine will be “reorganized, re-established and returned to its natural state of part of the Russian world.”
M: “This last statement, they felt, required further explanation, so they found a quote by mister anti-totalitarianism himself, Timothy Snyder.”
Analysis: This victory declaration “made it clear that Russia’s aim in this war was to destroy the Ukrainian state, destroy the Ukrainian nation, and then leave the remaining populace as a kind of unformed mass that could be colonized in any way the Russian leadership desired.” – Snyder
G: “But isn’t that what this whole mess is about? Colonialism? The power of the strong to shape the weak?”
M: “That is exactly what I try to say: Yes it is about colonialism when we see it. Something else when the Russians see it. Here, let’s find the article that they link to.”
She read it for a moment and looked back.
M: “I didn’t have to read on another minute before a completely different picture emerged. The article saved on archive.org starts out by saying:”
THE ADVANCE OF RUSSIA AND THE NEW WORLD - PETR AKOPOV - RIA.RU
[…]
Russia is restoring its unity —
the tragedy of 1991, that terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, has been overcome.Yes, at great cost, yes, through the tragic events of a de facto civil war, because now brothers, divided by their allegiance to the Russian and Ukrainian armies, are still shooting at each other — but Ukraine as an anti-Russia will no longer exist. Russia is restoring its historical integrity, gathering the Russian world, the Russian people, together—in all its diversity, Great Russians, Belarusians, and Little Russians.
C: “Petr Akopov is listed as a Russian propagandist everywhere, it seems.”
G: “Funny isn’t it… I seem to learn nothing about Petr as a human being from that Wikipedia article.”
M: “That is the whole point. The West, and I include Ukraine in that lot, is running a massive information factory just as much as Russia and Iran is. Only we can be almost certain that nobody in the West reads their writings.”
C: “In fact so certain, that they can directly quote and link to an article knowing that all we need is their take on the matter.”
M: “And as usual people like Timothy Snyder removed the whole reasoning behind their behaviour to make them look insane. Look at what Petr writes. The 1990s were disastrous to Russia, and clearly a lot of Russians silently decided in their hearts that the West had wanted their destruction as a people.”
G: “Conversely Petr completely stamps on Ukrainian feelings when he writes”
And the issue of national security — that is,
turning Ukraine into an anti-Russia and a stronghold for Western pressure— is only the second most important.
M: “Yes! Are Ukrainians really forced to love their oppressor? That is the whole point. They speak two languages.”
She read on.
M: “This article really sums up the whole mentality on at least one faction of Russian existential perception. It is no less nationalist than the American faith in their constitution and their history since 1776 and Europe’s infatuation with post-enlightenment freedom. Taking Kievan Rus away from Russia is like trying to make Americans see themselves as descendants of slave-owners and nothing else. It doesn’t sit well with our self-perception.”
[…] no longer one, but two peoples. That is, either renounce its history,
accepting the insane narrative that "only Ukraine is the true Rus',” or helplesslygnash its teeth, remembering the times when "we lost Ukraine."
M: “To Petr this is a great loss! The loss of an image of themselves as a culture.”
G: “Well, Ukraine doesn’t weep. They hate their former colonial masters. Historically they were always treated as lesser people.”
M: “Like the Palestinians they did not consist of a political entity, so they could only hope for something to change.”
C: “I’m not sure your characterisation is completely correct either, Gerald. Of course the war has changed a lot.”
M: “But my point stands. Once we allow ourselves to surgically remove the fat lumpy essence of the Russian behaviour, all we have is the phrenetic scream »look! They said destroy«. But if we could accept that asking Russia to give up on Ukraine, i.e. accept the narrative that Ukrainians are the sole descendants of Kievan Rus, would be like asking Israel to no longer see themselves as a Biblical people.”
G: “America managed to start over.”
M: “Yes, once. And the result was an overemphasis on their political identity. They truly rally around the flag and will do so for hundreds of years to come. They too fear being a divided people. They too fear a second cultural identity sneaking in. Democrats and Republicans are after all just two sides of the same heritage from the Founding Fathers. Snyder’s remark completely leaves the Russian identity question out of the equation.”
C: “But he is a historian. Isn’t he right about Ukrainian history?”
M: “Can’t you see that he - all of us - are playing a double game? Factual history and nationalist mythology are completely different beasts. Snyder allows Ukrainian myth building based on Kievan Rus’ being on the same spot that Kyiv occupies today. But Russia is not allowed access to the same historical past. Genetically it doesn’t even make sense to discern the inhabitants of those countries.”
G: “But you are also saying that DNA doesn’t matter here. Culture does, right?”
M: “Precisely.”
C: “So the problem is nationalism?”
G: “And the well grounded fear that without something to hold a country together, it will fall apart.”
M: “It would be easy to disagree with that. Do note, however, that had Ukraine been largely indifferent to the question of whether Russians were proud descendants of Kievan Rus, probably they could have skipped out into the European daylight without firing a single gun. It was exactly the implicit perception in their own myth about themselves, which enabled them to fight for change, that also forced their view of Russia too.”
C: “Isn’t the real question why we are unable to function without a political identity?”
M: “No, because on any given day we are functioning quite well without being Americans, Russians, men, women, Marxists, liberals, Orthodox, Protestants or anything else. We just get up, go to work and come home. If it hadn’t been for TV and small talk with colleagues, we wouldn’t need an identity at all. But we do need the other team to have one so we can stereotype them.”
In the meantime Gerald was reading further quotes.
G: “Miranda, why don’t you explain some of these later quotes by Medvedev, Timofei and others. Looking at the poison espoused by those rabid people is absolutely sickening.”
Miranda ordered another round of coffee and read the article.
G: “Will you admit this time that the excerpts from Timofei’s article cover his actual thoughts pretty darn good?”
WHAT SHOULD RUSSIA DO WITH UKRAINE - TIMOFEI SERGEYTSEV - RIA.RU - APRIL 2022
The “denazification” of Ukraine entails “a set of measures in relation to the nazified mass of the population, which technically cannot be subjected to direct punishment as war criminals.”
G: “And Snyder’s analysis fits the bill?”
Analysis: Denazification in “official Russian usage just means the destruction of the Ukrainian state and nation. A ‘Nazi,’ as [Sergeitsev’s article] explains, is simply a human being who self-identifies as Ukrainian.
According to [him], the establishment of a Ukrainian state thirty years ago was the ‘nazification of Ukraine.’Indeed ‘any attempt to build such state’ has to be a ‘Nazi’ act.” – Snyder
Miranda read on. Gerald and Christine could see hear her grinding thought processes above the noise in the cafe.
M: “I cannot agree with you. I believe you interpret my method as somehow an advancement of the notion that there is something good in everybody. Let me be clear: Unless you learn to love the human animal for what it is, there is nothing good in everybody.
Unlike Petr Akopov, Timofei Sergeitsev holds a sincere grudge.
Before I say anything further, I want to remind you my main point, which is that once you start quoting loosely, you lose the picture as a whole, which is that makes a persons behaviour seem coherent. In other words, even the mere act of extracting something allows people like Snyder to paint a different picture. That in itself will obstruct any peacemaking process.”
C: “Okay, duly noted. For my part it is Timofei’s own articles that I dislike.”
M: “Timothy Snyder is not far off the mark when he states that Timofei’s use of the word nazi means anybody who professes to being a Ukrainian. But it is more than that. Timofei ties together with the idea of nazism many anti-Russian sentiments. Historically, this is not altogether wrong. You can find similar rhetoric - and I do hate the word as it suggests the writer is disingenuous - amongst Jewish people today who recasts many modern debates in the light of 1930s-era antisemitism.”
Christine noticed that Miranda looked genuinely intrigued. Miranda followed a link in the article to an even older one from April 2021.
M: “Even in 2021. Very interesting.”
She stood up.
M: “Even in early 2021 the Russians were in high alert over the idea of the world hating them. Note that it has nothing to do with territorial gains. They sense our hatred and react correspondingly. Currently the leadership is of a more resolute kind, and that is what worries us.
Wow, notice this quote here:”
WHAT KIND OF UKRAINE DO WE NEED - TIMOFEI SERGEYTSEV - RIA.RU - APRIL 2021
We must therefore clearly understand the differences between fascism […] and
Nazism, which demands that the entire population of a fascist dictatorship acceptas a moral complexa complex of racial superiorityand practically realize it in a “people’s” war against other peoples, supposedly “standing lower on the evolutionary ladder of development, " that is, in essence, not peoples at all from the Nazi point of view,not people, but zoological communities.
M: “There. The case in one single point: The Russian leadership have sensed that we view them as monkeys. Swamp people. Muscovites who built a city over a bog.”
G: “That’s a mixed bag, isn’t it?”
M: “It is not terribly important that Timofei may be widely off the mark. What is of importance is that Snyder left out this very important explanation of motivation. The reflexive toxicity, the mirror reaction. We find it tremendously surprising that other nations actually react to being stereotyped.
Imagine Timofei had been met with a resounding refutation: No, Mr. Timofei, we do not think of Russians as orcs.”
Christine smiled. Gerald disagreed.
G: “So you suggest that if someone ranking high in America had put Timofei in place, we could have avoided a war?”
M: “No. I am thinking someone from Ukraine.”
Christine and Gerald laughed.
M: “You see my point?”
C: “That is unfair. Ukrainians see this from a completely different perspective.”
M: “I know. I said so before. But that is nevertheless the only way to peace. That each side learn to speak each other’s language.”
C: “Isn’t that tantamount to surrendering?”
M: “That again is part of a vocabulary. The danger of language is that we know we can never allow ourselves to say what the enemy says. It’s like the very act of speaking the words changes our disposition. Take note of your own feelings when you speak of surrender… Why surrender at this point? The taste of victory is almost palpable. We can taste it, the possibility of ridding ourselves of a world view the air of which we swear will be our death. If we cannot control even our own emotions in this regard, we cannot control war. The truth? The truth is that collectively, we would be able to walk away from any war that has taken place in hundreds of years.”
Gerald shrugged when Miranda looked at him for support.
Christine sat hunched over her plate. She could feel herself develop slowly but surely into a cynic.
/ПРИЗРАК