By Deepa Majumdar
Mr. Putin’s barbaric invasion of the sovereign nation of Ukraine proves that the temptation of power continues to plague politics, as it has, since time immemorial. For all our technological advancements and the hubris of the twenty-first century, we remain susceptible to this primitive temptation, which is, perhaps, inherent in politics. If free-will comes with the risk of evil, then politics comes with that of power. Whether statecraft, or protest, politics comes with the thirst to rule. Unlike good forms of power, which are vested with responsibility and hence, legitimate authority, the raw desire to rule is an evil form of power that comes with illegitimate authority. Although always violent, bad power reaches its zenith when sadistic – as in torture and war against an unarmed “enemy.” While all wars are cruel, the twenty-first century hi-tech war is malevolent in the kind of weapons it uses. If nuclear weapons are catastrophic, then drone attacks – a result of blind utilitarian reasoning – represent the quintessence of cowardice. This malevolence reaches its zenith when the perceived enemy is innocent and the war unprovoked. The complete contrary of a just war, Mr. Putin’s sadistic invasion of Ukraine qualifies as among the most unjust of wars – all the more, given his irrational justification – a mix of hypocrisy and revanchist ideologies. As BBC News reports:
Many of President Putin’s arguments were false or irrational. He claimed his goal was to protect people subjected to bullying and genocide and aim for the “demilitarisation and de-Nazification” of Ukraine. There has been no genocide in Ukraine: it is a vibrant democracy, led by a president who is Jewish.[1]
Many western experts have analyzed Mr. Putin’s invasion – their reasoning ranging from blaming him without context, to blaming the west using historical context, but no free-will. While there is, of course, the broader precipitating context of the history of Russia and Ukraine, plus the need for Russian gas, the economics of it all, the oligarchs and their role, etc., the fact remains that it was Mr. Putin who triggered this war – nobody else. As the immediate cause of this collective violence against innocent unarmed people, he alone is culpable in a way nobody else is. Ukraine would have been spared if Mr. Putin had heeded this warning from the gentle Buddha (Dhammapada, Ch. 10, “Violence”):
He who harms the harmless or hurts the innocent, ten times shall he fall – into torment or infirmity, injury or disease or madness, persecution or fearful accusation, loss of family, loss of fortune. Fire from heaven shall strike his house and when his body has been struck down, he shall rise in hell.
Like all bullies, Mr. Putin expected little to no resistance from Ukraine. He expected a swift conquest – a shock and awe subjugation of Ukraine (reminiscent of America’s shock and awe subjugation of Iraq) – an overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government, then regime change. But the modern hi-tech war is contingent in a way no other product is. Yes, war too is a product – one that reifies violence. One humdrum aspect of modern technological production is the mechanical certitude, and hence, utterly predictable character of its products and their performance. Not so the modern hi-tech war, which draws its contingency, not from mechanical failures, but from unforeseen historical happenings. The courageous resistance of the Ukrainian people has taken Mr. Putin by surprise. Perhaps so have protests from Russian citizens (including two top billionaires) and from a world united against him. Western sanctions, even if weak, will hopefully cripple Mr. Putin’s ability to afford this war. Moreover, thanks to technological advancements, like the smart phone, etc., his atrocities in Ukraine (unlike PRC’s atrocities in Tibet) are being documented. Based on this documentation, Mr. Putin should face the fullest prosecution for crimes against humanity.
Many questions linger. First, while it is wonderful to see the world unite against Mr. Putin, why has the west not react the same way to the bombing of Yemen by US backed Saudi forces, or to the other invasions and atrocities from the twentieth and twenty-first centuries – like America’s pre-emptive attack on Iraq or PRC’s invasion of Tibet? Second, I understand the need for discipline in the armed forces. I also understand the need to subordinate them below the head of state – so as to prevent military takeovers and coups. But why is their relationship with their commander-in-chief so cultish that they obey blindly the insane orders of an “aging autocrat” (as The Guardian called Mr. Putin)? Third, how do we prevent a revanchist delusional megalomaniac and pure sadist like Mr. Putin – to whom, Ukraine is not even a nation – from positions of power? How do we sublimate the thirst for power to a spirit of service? For Plato, the solution lay in cultivating the ideal leader, who, having glimpsed the numinous glory of the Good, would no longer be interested in power. This, perhaps, is the highest solution to the problem of power. But only a rare few reach this consummate ideal. The rest of us need the structured democracy, with checks and balances, strict term limits for heads of state, plus mature disciplined citizens capable of following democratically created rules.
Ukraine proves that for at least two reasons, non-violence, although the highest ideal, is not an absolute moral virtue. First, not everyone is morally capable of facing violence with non-violence. To force a person to do so would be violent. Second, non-violence is not feasible in all empirical situations. Ukraine cannot afford non-violence before Russian armed forces, described as one of the world’s largest military forces. Like the Tibetans towards PRC’s invading soldiers, the Ukrainians have been brave, cheeky, and resilient before Russian forces. This is praiseworthy. But they also need weapons, which have suddenly become as essential to life as food and water!
That the world has united in support of Ukraine proves that we are moving away from the subjective ethics of moral relativism towards the objective ethics of Conscience. The tragedy of Ukraine adds to the turmoil that defines our extraordinary historical moment – a moment that presages the next macro-cycle of History.