Tuesday, March 8, 2022

When is there an obligation to cease fighting?

 We have all heard of the "just war" teaching of the church.  Most people would agree that a war fought in self defense, such as is happening in Ukraine, fits the definition of just war. 

Here is a good summary of the catechism's discussion of war:

"2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

"These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good."

Less clear cut that the first two conditions are the next two.  When is there an obligation to stand down, even when your cause is just?  When do people decide that the human cost in mayhem and misery is too great?  Can the US and other NATO nations help Ukraine broker a cease in hostilities which won't victimize them further?


11 comments:

  1. I haven't really been able to discern if one or the other side is "winning". I've seen quite a few articles and tweets highlighting the shortcomings and ineptitude of the Russian military. The Russians have been achieving some objectives along the Black Sea but elsewhere they seem to have been stymied so far. Weapons are flowing to the Ukrainians, and their fighters seem to be holding their own. Putin is showing no signs of backing down, so I fear this is going to turn into a terrible, lengthy, bloody slog, with neither side achieving a decisive result. This could go on for years - a decade or more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are some signs Zelensky is willing to give up pursuit of NATO membership. As much as European and other nations have come to the aid of Ukraine by means of economic warfare, they really do not want to have to come to its military defense.

    He also says he may compromise on the Eastern provinces. Guerrilla warfare has been taking place there for a long time. Maybe Russian “peace keeping forces” in these “independent” provinces is a way to make things better for everyone.

    Russian does want a demilitarized Ukraine. Zelensky might well compromise with a solution that allows Ukraine defensive forces, anti-aircraft guns and missiles but no air force or tanks that could attack Russia. Particularly in this day of small drones, it should be possible for a nation to make an invasion like Russia is conducting very costly without offensive weapons.

    The greater problem for Russia is how do they get the West to back off the economic warfare, the desire to greatly strengthen NATO, and the possible addition of the Baltic States to NATO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ukrainian drones seem to be operating with impunity. There doesn't seem to be an effective Russian counterdefense. We have deployed powerful neodymium:YAG lasers on some of our ships which can burn down drones. I'm not sure if we have mobile land lasers in anything but development stage.

      Delete
    2. Clearly, Zelensky is willing to make significant sacrifices for peace. Having Russian troops in the "independent" provinces doesn't strike me as just. It's difficult to believe that true peace will result (holding here the notion of peace to a higher standard than "the cessation of hostilities"). Would it be just for Ukrainians to try to drive Russian troops out of the "independent provinces" and Crimea? I'm not sure whether the traditional just war criteria provide a clear cut answer.

      Delete
    3. There is little justice in the world, especially in the realm of international relations. I'd settle for a ceasefire if we have to make concessions to a monster.

      Delete
  3. Chilling to hear that power has been cut to Chernobyl and that the situation is being called "dangerous" by the IAEA. They want to restore power and send in inspectors.

    Whether its a deadly radiation leak, massive streams of refugees, or the lack of Russian oil, I can't see how this mess doesn't eventually suck in the rest of Europe and us eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Apparently Patriarch Kiril thinks flying a gay pride flag is a worse mortal sin than thousands of people dying a violent death in an unnecessary war.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not sure if anyone saw the story in the WaPo about women in Poland leaving strolkers at train stations for Ukrainian mothers who have children in arms. Most strollers had soft toys in them. A few child's wheelchairs were also left.

    That's what being pro-life looks like, if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jan I did see the photo. It is very moving.

      That's what being pro-life looks like, if you ask me

      I couldn’t agree more.

      Delete
    2. I've been called much worse! :-)

      Delete