As explained, “Alexey” is a Russian friend who responded to my piece, “Crowdsourced ‘war’.” I published his reply here. Here is my reply to him. I don’t know whether these exchanges will enhance understanding. Such is the risk of free speech always.
Dear Alexey,
Thank you for your response to my essay, “Crowdsourced ‘war’.” There is never a need to apologize for delay — and especially not now.
Let’s start with where we agree.
- We agree that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is wrong — as you put it, a war that is “totally unnecessary and terrible.”
- And I know you agree that a hot war with Russia because of this invasion would be a civilization-ending disaster.
But then what does the world do with (1)? A nuclear power wages an unprovoked war to defeat the territorial sovereignty of a nation. Putin has made it clear that he considers Ukraine part of Russia; his military force aims now to effect that (re)union. Should the world do nothing in response to that?
No doubt, there are parallels across history. America’s war against Mexico was just as clearly unjustified. The war in Iraq was grounded at the very least in a mistake, or, as you know I believe, in a lie.
But we’re not tallying the score at the end of a game of Monopoly. The question is what should be done now. And I don’t see how the world blinks the pattern that seems only to grow in intensity: Georgia, Crimea, now Ukraine — what next? Does Putin offer any reason to believe that his aspirations have limits (at least before the USSR is rebuilt)?
Maybe you think the world should do nothing. Then tell me: Is that your belief? And when he then would see that territorial aggression is costless, and continues into the NATO countries with a similar past, what then? Does the world forgive that too? Tolerate that as well? Could the West — bound as it is by treaty to respond with military force—do nothing then?
I can’t see how the world can ignore the parallels to a century ago — especially when nothing Putin says in justification for this war is true, and when the obvious actual rationale has no less ambitious a reach than Germany’s. And if the world can’t ignore the parallel, but should not (as we both believe) wage a hot war to stop him, what else is there for the world to do? You could say “diplomacy,” but to what end? How is they any concession to a violent invasion?
I had offered what I called a “crowdsourced ‘war’” as the space between doing nothing and waging hot war. It leverages global interdependence while recognizing the humanity-ending threat of nuclear weapons. I don’t think it is quite as you describe it, and I respond to some specifics below. But God knows, I wish there were better alternatives. I’d love a regime that says that if 2/3ds of the UN condemns a war, then the aggressor can be charged in the ICJ with reparations. But Russia could veto any such action, and ICJ is still adjudicating Kosovo! Law is useless, leaving the world with terrible options in response to a terrible crime.
So if not this, Alexey, then what? That really is the only question between us. As a friend, I want to understand precisely your answer to that.
Below are quotes from your original essay that I’ve pulled make sure to address carefully:
You call for civilians of your nation to wage a war against the civilians of mine. It is exactly the kind of war our civilization was trying to get rid of at the Hague Conferences at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.
It is not “exactly the kind of war” that civilization thought it had ended. That kind of war was hot war against civilians — what many see happening in Ukraine right now. I am against hot war here, and in general. But you’re right, the costs of a “crowdsourced ‘war’” (note the quotes) are borne by innocents. They are just wildly less than the costs being born by the innocents in the sovereign nation now being invaded.
It reminds me of something very archaic. Essentially, you call for a collective responsibility for a single wrongdoing done by one man.
It is helpful to frame that all this horror is flowing from the ego of just one man. I agree, it does.
But the word “responsibility” is a complicated word. If the world adopted as its convention that the citizens of a nation that wages an illegal war for territory against another will suffer the consequences of a “crowdsourced ‘war’” in response — rather than the consequences of a hot war in response—then it is the “one man” who launches that illegal war who is “responsible” for those consequences. That’s is a collective consequence, no doubt, for his illegal act.
But of course, no one should say that the Russian people are “collectively responsible.” They are not. “One man”—Putin—is responsible; two nations—Ukraine and Russia—will suffer for his crime.
My personal responsibility for this war is much, much less than the responsibility of the Western leaders like Biden, or Trump, or Obama, or Merkel, or Scholtz.
This is completely right. But no one — certainly not I—is saying that you should be “punished” because you are “responsible” for what Putin has done. A “crowdsourced ‘war’” is not about “punishing” anyone; it is about making aggressive war untenable. The citizens of Germany and Iraq paid reparations for their illegal war, not because anyone was confused about whether individually, citizens of Germany or Iraq could have stopped their governments. They weren’t punished; they just paid the price.
but it surprises me that you totally exclude any possible responsibility of the Western leaders for this war.
I have not. One can concede the million mistakes and arrogances and ignorance on our side that precedes this horror. That does not change the truth of (1). If I insult a man, and then he shoots me, no doubt, I am, in a sense “responsible.” But that doesn’t excuse his shooting me.
It is a great tragedy that Russians and Ukrainians could not find a way to live in peace.
Ok, come on, Alexey. “Could not find a way to live in peace”? No one is confused about how to “find a way to live in peace.” Not launching an invasion into a sovereign territory is a perfectly obvious “way to live in peace.” I get not liking what your neighbor is doing. Think about Mexico’s feeling about the United States under Trump. And I don’t support either the Carter Doctrine or the militarized Monroe Doctrine. But we “find” a way to “live in peace” by not waging aggressive war.
I don’t know why you don’t call for a ‘crowdsourced war’ against those who really could and should but didn’t prevent this war.
Because a “crowdsourced ‘war’” is a response to an “illegal war.” Criticism and ordinary politics is the response to weakness and mistakes.
The crowdsourced war does not have this kind of legal underpinning, it is governed only by lynch law.
That’s right. It doesn’t. But it is not quite “lynch law.” “Lynching” feels very different — as even a brief (if illegal in an increasing number of states) review of American history will attest. It is instead a bottom-up effort by people and companies everywhere to create sanctions short of hot war. It would be great to have a more clearly articulated structure for such ‘war.’ It should never, for example, express itself against a particular person because of their nationality.
Once you unleash the energy of the crowdsourced war against the Russians, it would be difficult to stop. Mobs are getting crazy as they smell blood. I already hear from my friends living in Europe that their Russian kids are bullied in schools and even kindergartens only because they are Russian.
Nothing in the notion of a “crowdsourced ‘war’” supports the idea of mobs and violence. The whole point is force short of violence. And yes, it is absolutely wrong to punish individuals because of their nationality. No one should pay a price for their race or sex or identity or religion or nationality. It is just as ignorant to scorn or spread hate on a Russian because of Putin as it is to spread hate on a citizen of Wuhan because of COVID.
That point does illustrate an assumption that you might well challenge: That there is some potential good that might come from this ‘war.’ If the costs on Russia would have zero chance of effecting a change from Putin, then yes, they are as rational as punishing Wuhan for COVID. But I do believe — and maybe this is an error — that at some point costs become untenable. And I am assuming that that happens before he is allowed to launch a humanity-destroying response. That is a strong — and dangerous—assumption, I concede.
I don’t also agree with you that crowdsourced wars would be a good alternative for the modern world. You present this instrument as a neutral tool targeting aggressors when the governments cannot do anything. But I doubt that this instrument is independent of the governments. We didn’t see this level of social mobilization in the West in other wars when the aggressor was a Western country or a NATO ally.
Again, I think you agree it is better than a hot war. The only disagreement is whether doing nothing is better still. And yes, I certainly agree that any such principle should be applied consistently. The US in particular has exceeded its moral authority with violence repeatedly. And I would say that anytime such an act is condemned by the UN as overwhelmingly as this is condemned, I would not object to — even if I would not like—similar sanctions against US.
To me, the crowdsourced war looks like just another extension of conventional war-making it even worse. The danger of this instrument is that it turns a relatively regulated and contained military conflict into a total war with corporate and social crusades against the civilians of the enemy country.
I don’t think it is fair to call it an “extension.” It is an alternative. If it became violent, then it is not what I am describing.
And I thought the reason we agreed on (2) was that we agreed that there was no such thing as “a relatively regulated and contained military conflict” with a man who has already signaled the relevance of nuclear weapons against a nation without any.
But it is clear to me that if we want a real alternative form of resolving conflicts in the 21st century we don’t need more kinds of war (even innovative ones) but we need more kinds of peace.
What is that, “more kinds of peace.” The “peace” of standing by as your neighbor is murdered? Is that “peace”?
The more common response to the argument I’m making (at least from someone not suffering its effects) is, “so your neighbor is being murdered, and your response is not to buy from his shop? What kind of response is that?” — which is an understandable response. But everything I’ve said is premised on the belief that anything more than a “crowdsourced ‘war’” risks a civilization-destroying response, while anything less induces more Ukrainian-like crimes.
But what is clear is that the West, by waging a total war against the Russians, is essentially leaving us to deal with this alone.
This is not “total war.” “Total war” is what this is to avoid.
But more fundamentally, yes. This problem — Putin—is for Russia to deal with. How is that done, Alexey?
