Is Putin's War Ethical?

In this blog post I will combine all my previous findings on Putin's annexation of Crimea along with its adherence (or lack thereof) to the Just War Theory to decide if his reasons for seizing the territory are ethical and just or not. I looked at all the required aspects for the Just War theory to see if they applied to Putin's actions in Ukraine.

First, it was concluded that Just Cause did not intact apply to Putin's reasoning for the annexation. Next, Comparative Justice was also ruled out as a likely rule in the war in Crimea as well as the rules of Right Intention, Last Resort, and Proportionality. The ones that I did find to apply to Putin's annexation were Competent Authority and Probability of Success. However, meeting the standards of 2 out of 7 factors certainly does not mean that Putin followed the Just War Theory when planning out his strategy for seizing Crimea.

Seeing as many people follow the Just War Theory as a guideline for determining the ethics of general warfare, I believe it is safe to say from the above information that the violent conflict in Crimea instigated by the Russians is far from ethical and is wildly incompatible with what most people today would consider just.

Saint Augustine disapproves. 

Probability of Success, Last Resort, and Proportionality

In this blog post I will look into further analysis on the final three necessary aspects of Just War Theory-Probability of Success, Last Resort, and Proportionality-before comparing these rules with the actions of Vladimir Putin in the Ukraine this past February. By looking into these and determining whether or not they apply to the annexation of Crimea, I will combine them with the other previously analyzed aspects of the theory and decide whether or not Putin's actions follow the Just War theory as a whole or not.

Pro-Ukrainian Protesters

Firstly, Probability of Success entails that there must be a high chance of winning the war before going into it to ensure that the conflict is not futile and therefore a waste of time, resources, and an unnecessary loss of life for both sides. I would say that in the case of Putin, there was a pretty high chance of success for his annexation because Russia's military is much stronger than Ukraine's and there had also been fairly high support for the process by many Ukrainian citizens, thus making it an even smoother annexation with less resistance. Putin knew that the region was a fairly easy target and therefore adhered well to the idea of probability of success.

Second, Last Resort means that war may only be explored as an option after all other peaceful choices have been exhausted and had been proven ineffective. Sometimes, peace talks and negotiations are not actually efficient means of avoiding conflict because they are just used as a way to buy time. In Putin's case, I feel that he very clearly did not use invasion as a last resort, rather he performed this action illegally and with little to no prior discussion with Ukrainian leaders on the subject. Considering these factors, it is clear to say that Putin did not obey the law of last resort.

Lastly, Proportionality brings about the idea that the benefits of declaring and waging a war must be greater than the potential downsides. It is hard to decide on this point because this can be extremely subjective. However, it is my belief that the economic benefit of a warm-water port does not outweigh the evil atrocities committed by the Russian military during the invasion in which pro-Ukrainian protesters had been "attacked, abducted, and tortured", not to mention the complete disregard for the sovereignty of the Ukrainian state.

Map of Ukraine showing its divisions and how many people list Russian as their native language

Competent Authority and Right Intention in Crimea

In this blog post, I will analyze the next two criteria for the Just War theory in terms of Vladimir Putin's actions in Crimea- Competent Authority and Right Intention. The idea of competent authority refers to who has the right to declare and wage a war. The criterion for this is that "a just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinction of justice. Dictatorships or deceptive military actions are typically considered as violations of this criterion. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice." Right intention, however, refers to the idea that force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose- correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

In terms of competent authority, I believe that Putin certainly counts as a political authority who presides over a political system with a distinction of justice. While the Russian Federation may have differing ideas from ours about what constitutes justice and right, it goes without saying that they do indeed have a legitimate court and law system. 

For right intention, however, there is a different interpretation. While Putin and his followers may have truly believed that their cause to regain Russian territories and "protect ethnic Russians" in these places, at the most basic level this annexation was brought on by a desire for material gain and economic purposes. The desire for a warm-water port (a great advantage in trade and economics) was a large factor in sending troops into the Ukraine. Since material gain and economic maintenance are used here as reasoning for the invasion, Putin's actions do not constitute right intention. 

Warm-Water Port Krym in Crimea

Just War Theory and the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Now that I have spent four blog posts summarizing the main points in Mr. Putin, it is time to look into the ethical considerations of this book in a biblical context. In my Biblical Heritage class, we have talked many times about the idea of a just war and possible justifications for violence, especially through Saint Thomas Aquinas' Just War Theory. Aquinas' Just War theory includes guidelines for both Jus ad Bellum (right to go to war) and Jus in Bello (right conduct in war). Jus ad bellum contains seven different required elements-Just Cause, Comparative Justice, Competent Authority, Right Intention, Probability of Success, Last Resort, and Proportionality. In the next few blog posts, I will examine these factors and analyze whether or not Vladimir Putin's actions against the Ukraine hold up to the test.

Firstly, I will look into the Just Cause element. According to the Just War theory, Just Cause comes about only when there are lives at stake or in danger and must never be used to regain something or to punish a nation or group of people. It is important that an act of war is never for the purpose of a specific goal in a nation's self-interest, but rather that it only be put into action in order to establish or re-establish peace.

In the case of Putin's actions in Crimea, it is my personal belief that they do not adhere to the element of Just Cause because Putin's main reasons for invading the Ukraine include the desire for a warm water port (which is located there), the acquisition of natural resources, and the acquisition of agricultural resources. All of these reasons serve to benefit Russia in some way while offering no promise of peace or prosperity to the Ukrainian people.

Secondly, the element of Comparative Justice also proves to not be a factor in Putin's motives. Comparative Justice states that the injustices incurred by the attacker must be significantly higher and worse than those incurred by the nation being attacked. This clearly does not apply to Putin's actions because the Ukraine had not inflicted any injustice on Russia prior to the attacks. In the next few posts I will continue to analyze the other aspects of the Just War theory to see if any apply to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

The Survivalist and The Outsider

The next two personality types recognized in Vladimir Putin are 'The Survivalist' and 'The Outsider'. The idea of Putin as a 'Survivalist' comes from his background as the child of survivors of World War II, one of the darkest and bleakest eras in Russian history. During the Nazi blockade of Leningrad from 1941 to 1944, Putin's family remained in the city and suffered greatly as bombings, disease, and starvation claimed over a million casualties, including Vladimir's older brother. It is through hardships like this that the Russian ideal of surviving and triumphing over all adversaries has become so deeply ingrained in the culture and ideology of the Russian people. Putin certainly embodies this ideal as he has been through tremendous hardship and come out on the other side. He has used this trait to combat recent hardships in Russia, like the St. Petersburg food crisis in the winter of 1991-1992 after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although his plan to use private companies as a way to supply the city with provisions ultimately failed, the promotion of the use of allotments for growing one's own food helped curb the disaster and the city was able to survive until things were fixed.

The Siege of Leningrad during World War II

Another trait used by Putin is his role as 'The Outsider'. The authors note that Putin's background in St. Petersburg (called Leningrad in Soviet times) has given him a sort of identity as an outsider from the political center of Moscow as well as from the families of intelligentsia or nomenklatura (those who occupy state administrative positions) since his family comes from humble origins. It took Putin many years of hard work to reach the upper levels of the KGB and it was said in the Russian media that he would have a hard time getting to power because he hadn't established the necessary connections and allied required to be in the "inner circle". This identity makes him unique in terms of politics because even in the United States, it is very rare for someone to get involved in higher politics that has no background or family history in the field. By understanding these traits and how they make him unique as well as a figure that Russians can relate to, it becomes clearer to see Putin's reasoning and intention behind some of his decisions.

Putin making important political connections

The Statist and the History Man

The next chapter of the book discusses the first aspect of Putin's personality-his view of himself as a "man of the state" or a "statist". This means that he sees himself as someone who is dedicated to the restoration of the Russian state and claims that the mission of his presidency is to reunite the Russian people through the distinguished values that make them differ from others, ideas that were "distinctly Russian", not just universal values like personal freedoms and rights. He called these values that make up the core of Russian belief the "Russian Idea" and these include patriotism, collectivism, solidarity, and lastly "derzhavnost" which is the belief that Russia's destiny is to always be a powerful entity that "exerts its influence abroad".

By latching onto these deals, Putin establishes himself as someone who pledges his loyalty not to a political party, but rather to the state itself and to restoring the state to its former glory and strength above all. This self presentation is rather common among those with a background in the KGB like Putin has. The book goes on to discuss the role of statists in Russia and how they have historically been known as the intelligent upper class that saw themselves as representing citizens in opposition to the tsarist economic and political system. In the Soviet era, the term was used to refer to jobs like doctors, engineers, teachers, scientists, researchers, writers, and artists that were held in high esteem in the Marxian social classification.

The authors also address the second role that Putin plays in his leadership-that of "The History Man", meaning he understands the important role that history can play in establishing legitimacy and in accomplishing goals. It is obvious to see this side of him in his policies as he often searches for ways to establish connections to Russia's past by participating in cultural renovation projects, his embracing of Russian Orthodoxy, and attempting to bring Russia back to a sovereign and historically rooted political system that is not highly democratic.

Putin's Inauguration Ceremony with Involvement from the Russian Orthodox Church

By understanding two of these key personality traits, it becomes easier to recognize the goals and intentions of Vladimir Putin and to put into perspective some of the decisions he makes and his public policy. Thanks for reading!

The Rise to Power

The next chapter begins by describing one very violent occurrence in the presidency of Boris Yeltsin (the Russian president preceding Putin). In October 1993, a political standoff took place between the Russian legislative and executive branches, finally resulting in a bloody skirmish with interior ministry forces when supporters of Parliament marched on the Moscow television tower. Official statements put the number of casualties at 145 deaths and 800 injuries. Having done this, Yeltsin proceeded to draft a new Russian constitution giving the president extensive powers over foreign and domestic policy and effectively strengthening the overall position of the leader.

On a lighter note, here's Boris Yeltsin dancing

The authors continue to discuss in detail the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and how precedents were set for Vladimir Putin to come into power just a few short years later. From the military assault on Chechnya to the resulting bilateral treaties, Yeltsin's presidency is characterized by turbulence and instability. In the years 1991-1996, Russia endured many hardships in the fields of domestic and foreign policy and the country was not united politically. This is when Putin arrived in Moscow to join in the Russian presidential administration. Chaos and war in Chechnya raged on and thousands had taken to the streets protesting unpaid wages and soaring prices. The West had forced Russia out from its place in the Balkan States, humiliating the nation and sending relations with the United States on a downward spiral. This is the perfect opportunity for Vladimir Putin to step into the public sphere and act as the nation's savior.