Part II. War Leadership: Vladimir Putin's Leadership in the Context of Russia's Bombing of Ukraine.

  March 31, 2022

 In case you haven't been following recent media coverage, President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian army to invade, neighboring, Ukraine by bombing cities and killing thousands of civilians. Survivors migrated to other nearby countries, especially Poland. Critics noted that deliberately bombing cities and killing non-combatants violates the principles of Just War Theory, and that Putin is therefore a war criminal. Although Ukraine is not a member, the European Union has been sending humanitarian aid and military hardware aid to Ukraine. Recently, Volodomyr Zylenskyy, duly elected President of Ukraine, traveled to the United States seeking more military hardware, especially aircraft and missiles, to help enforce a no-fly-zone over those land areas that the Russians have been using launch to bombers and missiles. In sum, Putin's invasion raises complex leadership puzzles for Joe Biden and the various leaders within the European Union. Should the European Union and/or the United State intervene militarily, if so, should that intervention include sending not only armaments, but also armed troops into Ukraine? Would that inspire Putin to use nuclear bombs? 

First of all, Leaders are judged based on four fundamental criteria: 1.) Does that leader inspire followers? 2.) What goals does that leader inspire followers to pursue? 3.) Are those goals good/bad, for whom? 4.) Is that leader effective and/or efficient at realizing those good/bad goals?  Let's all agree that Vladimir Putin is a bad leader, because he deliberately targeted civilians, in violation of international law; and that he seems to have done so effectively. Let's postpone the question of whether the bombing is/was an efficient way to achieve his political goals.                                                                                                           

Russia's feeble economy is based on the export of oil and gas, and wheat to European countries. But European countries have come to rely on these commodities, and there are no other oil-producing or wheat-producing countries willing or able to fill the void. Thus, the political issues include the short-term question of whether or not political leaders in Europe ought to collectively boycott Russian oil, gas, and, wheat... even though it would inflict hardship on their own citizens? But do boycotts really work? If the EU decides to continue to import those products, they will be inadvertently helping finance Russia's bombing strategy, pay soldiers, and perhaps help expand that invasion to other European countries? Over the long run, if the EU decides to boycott Russian commodities, the followers of those respective leaders within the European countries, will suffer greatly, and the cost of oil and natural gas will skyrocket. How long will voters in the EU and the US tolerate this high gas and food prices? At what point will they vote those leaders out of power.  In sum, how much suffering must Western democracies (European and US voters) be willing to endure, in order to support the boycott (and hopefully) end the Russian bombing of Ukraine? How long will the Russian people and military leaders tolerate the high cost of Putin's bombing campaign, and the death of many invading Russian soldiers? In general, how long can totalitarian leaders remain in power when they alienate military leaders, their own citizens at home, and the leaders of neighboring countries... for no good reason?  Let's call it the way it is... this bombing campaign was not only illegal and immoral, but also profoundly stupid... It cannot end well for Putin. 

          Part 3

Reasearch Panel for the Midwest Political Science Association April 1 (4/14 until 2:45) 4023, Palmer House, Chicago, Illinois

      The Biological, Cultural, and Technological Evolution                               of Human Warfare

                                           Organized By: 

                                    Ronald F. White, Ph.D.  

                             Philosophy Professor Emeritus, 

                     Mount St. Joseph University, Cincinnati, OH                                                                         

                                           Sponsored by:                                                                         The Association for Politics and the Life Sciences

                                                                            

                                            Dedicated to:                                                                                           Steven A. Peterson, Ph.D.                                                                                (Co-Founder of APLS)                                                                                                                                                                                                

                                               Abstract

This Research Panel will explore the biological, cultural, and technological evolution and/or devolution of human warfare, including cultural forces and mental mechanisms that produce it. These sessions will focus on both the historical rise of collective conflict and the variations that have emerged at various times in various places. Together, these sessions will also explain how/why tribal, racial, ethnic, and religious differences affect both war and peace; and the role that long-term and short-term alliances between collectives have affected warfare today. We will also explore the applicability (and/or inapplicability) of Just War Theory to fragmented modern warfare driven by technological innovation, especially: communication technologies, transportation technologies, and weapon technologies.                                                                                                          

                          Possible Presentation Themes                                                                                

THEME #1. Weapon Technology: How has the evolution of weapon technology contributed to the rise of large-scale impersonal killing of human beings?

THEME #2. Communication Technology: How has the evolution of communications technology contributed to the frequency, lethality, and morality of human warfare?

THEME #3. Alliances: How has the formation and dissolution of evolving offensive and defensive alliances affected warfare between nations?

 

THEME #4. Religion: How have conflicting religious doctrines contributed to war within and between nations, especially "Just War Theory?"

 

THEME #5. Political Regimes: How have various political regimes contributed to the persistence of human warfare, especially, democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian, and/or theocratic regimes.                                                                                                                                                      

THEME #6. The Role of Women in the Military and During Wartime. Why are women frequently subjected to dehumanizing treatment in male-dominated military organizations. Should more women be recruited, drafted, and promoted to the higher ranks, or is it more complicated than that? Why is rape and murder of female non-combatants by invading forces so common.   

THEME #7. The Russian Invasion of Ukraine: How does Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the response (so far) by the European Union and the United States raise questions about Just War Theory? What role might Russian generals, oligarchs, and the populace play in ending that conflict? How does Putin's threat to employ nuclear weapons in Ukraine play in these peace negotiations?                                                                                                                                 

                                            Participants

Chair and Commentator

        Ronald F. White, Mount St. Joseph University                                                                           

Panelists

        John Amankwah

        Kenneth Blanchard

        Bonnie Chojnacki

        Charles Kroncke

        David Vanderburgh                                                                                                                                                                                     

            Introduction to the Evolution of Human Warfare                                                                                                                                      By: Ronald F. White, Ph.D 

            When cultural anthropologists study the evolutionary history of the human species, they inevitably seek to explain the emergence of both "peace" and "war," and perhaps wonder to what extent either or both have been shaped over time by biology, culture, or both. There are other primate species that exhibit peaceful and/or warlike behavior, including Bonobos (peaceful) and Chimpanzees (warlike)? It has been argued that for 3.5 million years, human beings lived as peaceful, co-existing hunter-gatherers, and that inter-tribal conflict was rare. Others argue that warfare is a natural human behavior common among many species and a part of the human condition.  Some of our oldest artifacts and historical writings chronicle the organized destruction of individual human armies and innocent, bystanders, For philosophers and theologians, warfare has always been puzzling. How, why, and when did small groups of human hunters and gatherers go to war? How did human warfare relate to the pursuit of food via hunting and gathering?  We know that with the rise of the Agricultural Revolution (10,000 years ago), human warfare became more evolutionarily salient. With the rise of morality and religion, it became obvious that warfare violated our most sacred and valued principles: beneficence, non-maleficence, liberty, justice, and utility? In times of war the familiar descriptive phrase of that group behavior includes "rape, pillage, and plunder," But it is only the beginning of the long list of moral transgressions that typically accompany human warfare. We can add a host of other equally despicable acts such as torture, lying, slavery, terrorism, and environmental devastation. Many religious texts documents, including the Old Testament, document the persistence of warfare. Although the act of war itself has not changed much in the past 1000 years or so, it has been reshaped over time by the cultural evolution of military technology, as the capacity for destruction increased exponentially. Today the United States and other technologically advanced countries have evolved the technological capacity to completely destroy any major city on earth and render it uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Thanks to the advent of biological and chemical weapons, we now, have the ability to kill every single inhabitant in any major city without destroying a single building. We can even watch all of this live on television! The task for philosophers and theologians has been to explore the intersection between war and morality and attempt to set limits to all this death and destruction.                                                                                                                                     There are two questions that frame the ethics of warfare. Under what conditions is it morally acceptable (or Just) to "engage in war" and once engaged, what behaviors are morally acceptable (or Just) within warfare. There are two classic positions: Just War Theory and Political Realism. Just War Theory includes three alternative theories: Ideal Pacifism (Quakers and Buddhists) will not engage in violence or war, even in self-defense. It argues that killing human beings is always wrong because it belies a stark disrespect for human life. Modified Pacifism, as dictated by Just War Theory, says that failing to defend oneself (or others) against an aggressor reveals a fundamental disrespect for one's own life and/or the lives of innocents who are being attacked. Some modified pacifists are utilitarians and argue that the morality of war is to be judged based solely on the "Greatest Happiness Principle" or a favorable balance of benefits over costs. On the other extreme, there is Political Realism, which says that war is, in fact, imbedded in human nature. Human beings, they argue, have always acted out of individual and collective self-interest, and therefore will always go to war when the anticipated benefits seem to outweigh the costs. Political realists are utilitarians that believe that "might makes right" and that once a nation declares war, the ultimate goal is to win at all costs. In the history of human warfare, they say, you will find that there really are no rules of war, even though all nations declare that there are moral limits. Rules of war, they argue, are usually monitored and enforced by the stronger military force (winners) and are typically violated by both sides.                                                                                                                                                                   In the real world, rules of war are often employed as propaganda tools intended to rally reluctant citizens behind their war-mongering leaders. That's why in all wars, at all times and in all places, each opposing side is "dehumanized" and portrayed by the other as an immoral. Political realists, however, see war as an instrument of foreign policy allegedly justified by utilitarian concerns. Just war theorists are pacifists that will engage in war, if and only if, that war is morally justified. In the course of human history there have been many theories of just war, however, the theory espoused by St. Augustine and the Roman Catholic tradition has long dominated the Western tradition. This theory states that a nation can justifiably go to war in order to prevent the loss of human life or the violation of human rights, and that nations may not use war as a means of advancing a nation's economic goals. Once engaged in war, nations may not engage in unnecessary or in discriminant killing or destruction beyond what is required to restore peace. While just war theory does aspire to bring war under the governance of moral principles, it is important to note that, the just war principles are broad, multiple conflicting interpretations.                                                                                                                                                                                          The process of building an army is also morally problematic. Some soldiers are physically forced to go to war, via conscription, while other soldiers enlist out of "patriotism," "honor," and/or financial reward. In any war, it is not always clear who is the aggressor, since all parties who engage in war believe that their actions are morally justified. And of course, when a nation goes to war based on Just War Theory, it is not likely to win if its opponent acts on the basis of Political Realism and, therefore, is willing to indiscriminately kill non-combatants (traditionally women and children), destroy its infrastructure unrelated to the war effort, and disrupt the distribution of civilian food and water supplies.                                                                                                                                                                            For more detail, check out my earlier blogs on Just War Theory. The Ethics of War and Putin's Invasion of Ukraine.  

https://ronaldfwhite.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-nature-and-nurture-of-human-warfare.html