Just and Unjust Wars & the Ukraine Crisis

Was putting another book back in our home library when the 1977 classic Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer caught my eye. Probably haven't cracked it since studying International Affairs. Very apropos to the Ukrainian crisis. I started by skimming it, but had to get down my thoughts. While I just skimmed it this time around, I can see why it's a classic. In this post, I've applied Walzer to Putin's justifications for the Ukrainian invasion.

A basic theory of international politics is that war must have a just cause and be conducted in a just way (Ch. 2, pg. 21). Meaning the reason you start a war and the way you fight a war can both be judged and each must be correct for the war to be a legal war. For this post, we'll focus on the just cause aspect.

To add meat to that theory in a modern context, Walzer explains the legalist paradigm of just war theory(Ch. 4, pgs. 61-62):

1. "There exists an international society of independent states"
2. "This international society has a law that establishes the rights of its member - above all, the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty."
3. "Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act."
4. "Aggression justifies two kinds of violent response: a war of self-defense by the victim and a war of law enforcement by the victim and any other member of international society."
5. "Nothing but aggression can justify war."
6. "Once the aggressor state has been militarily repulsed, it can also be punished."

Putin is clearly a student of international policy and knows what he is talking about. That doesn't make his conclusions correct. He is drawing from many justifications of international theory to justify the invasion.

 Putin makes the below 5 claims in his speech before the invasion (per the Business Insider):

1) The war is justified as self-defense against NATO expansion

2) Ukraine has committed genocide against ethnic Russians

3) Ukraine does not have a real claim to statehood. It was created by Russia and as the birthplace of the Rus should return to Russia.

4) Ukraine is a nuclear threat to Russia.

Let's break these reasons down:

1) The war is justified as self-defense against NATO expansion

Putin sees that the balance of power is going against him and that NATO is encroaching on what he considers to be by rights on the side of Russia. NATO is getting too strong and could overcome Russian power. Ukraine, however, has not actually joined NATO, although it has shown desires to do so. Walzer sums up Putin's way of thinking: "the balance of power actually does prevent the liberties of Europe...and to fight early, before the balance tips in any decisive way greatly reduces the cost of defense (pg. 77)." And not conducting a preventative war could mean a worse war. But Walzer's response: changes in power dynamics are a constant in international politics, "perfect equilibrium...is a utopian dream... (pg. 77)" and as a practice, we don't want to be the state to make an unprovoked attack but be in response to an outside aggressor (pg. 80). According to Walzer's 5th legal paradigm,"Nothing but aggression can justify war." And Ukraine has not shown that aggression. In fact, as we'll see in point #2, Russia has by incurring on Ukrainian territory since 2014.

2) Ukraine has committed genocide against ethnic Russians

If # 2 is correct and Ukraine truly committed genocide against ethnic Russians, that could be a justification for war per Walzer: "Against the enslavement or massacre of political opponents, national minorities, and religious sects, there may be no help unless help comes from outside. And when a government turns savagely upon its own people, we must doubt the very existence of a political community to which the idea of self-determination might apply (Ch. 6, pg. 101)." Putin is referring to the Eastern Ukraine area of Donbask, which is disputed. Politifact disputes his claim, "The count of victims went trom 2.084 in 2014 to 18 in 2021." That's counting civilians who are pro-Ukraine and pro-Russia. So this does not constitute genocide and in fact, if anything Ukraine has the right to fight back and regain full control of its disputed territory.

3) Ukraine does not have a real claim to statehood. It was created by Russia and as the spiritual birthplace of the Rus should return to Russia.

History doesn't agree. Regardless of any earlier history, what's most relevant is what Ukrainians decided for themselves to found their nation. According to the Business Insider article, Ukranians voted 87% in favor of becoming a nation in 1991. Look again at rule #3 of the legal paradigm, "Any use of force or imminent threat of force by one state against the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another constitutes aggression and is a criminal act." Ukrainians decided to become a nation. Unless the majority of Ukrainians decided to join Russia or enter a Russian alliance, Russia does not have the right to impose its political will on that nation. Walzer continues on his section on Interventions, "a foreign power, morally if not legally alien, is...interfering in the "domestic" affairs, that is, in the self-determination of a political community. (pg. 93)"

4) Ukraine is a nuclear threat to Russia.

See my points for issue #1. Preemptive strikes in most cases are unjustified. Walzer's fifth point, "Nothing but aggression can justify war." Nuclear weapons on one's border may make a nation wary, but usually the threat of nuclear weapons has been met with deterrence  Mutually Assured Destruction leads to a mad, mad world. Walzer calls nuclear deterrence "kind of bluff (pg. 271)," because we hope to never actually hit that button, but need to show the political will to actually hit that button, or else our enemies will not be deterred. In the end, he sees it as a necessary evil at the moment, but calls for some new political strategy in future (pg. 283). 

Another historical precedent with smaller nations with some nuclear ability is deterrence through trade deals or embargoes. Smaller nuclear nations don't have the resources to be fully cut off from the outside - or face the possibility of being taken off the map. 

As for the facts about Putin's statement, firstly, Russia has nuclear weapons. Secondly, according to the Business Insider article, Ukraine does not currently have nuclear weapons even if they may have the capability to make them in future. If anything, Ukraine should be worried about Russian nukes.

From all of this, what can we conclude about Putin's reasons for war if we agree with Walzer's reasoning?

Russia's invasion of Ukraine does not have a just cause and is an unlawful war. Here are some reasons answering his points (though there are more):

1. NATO gaining more members is a perceived threat against Russia, but does not mean that the nations in NATO are conducting war against Russia. It is a defensive pact. Ukraine has not joined NATO. And there has not been actual aggression against Russian sovereignty by Ukraine. Again, it is the other way around.
2. Russia is invading another sovereign nation's territory. The people of Ukraine desire for it to be a political state as the nation of Ukraine.
3. Ukraine is not committing humanitarian crimes against an ethnicity
4. Ukraine not a nuclear threat and has not attacked Russia with nuclear weapons. See point one.

While this is just me trying to use some political theory I touched on in college to help understand a current war, if you want to help the Ukrainians fleeing this actual war, SEND RELIEF has set up a fund to help displaced Ukrainians.