The Shame of Military Immorality

What should we call the willful and almost total neglect of military ethics? Maybe the term military immorality catches what we are after, signifying not only the theoretical beach but also the shocking practical neglect of the basic rules of military practice. As this editorial is being written, the conflict in Ukraine is getting more intractable and serious by the day. The situation may have changed by the time this issue reaches our readers. However, no matter the further development, the Russian state and its military have assuredly failed judged by the standards of military ethics. The jus ad bellum requirements of just cause, right intention, and proportionality were blatantly violated as Ukraine was attacked. This is true no matter how one views the rights of the Russian-speaking population of parts of Ukraine, or the willingness of NATO and the EU to consider Ukrainian membership in their organizations in spite of Russian objections. The threshold for engaging military force must be placed considerably higher and was never even approached as Ukraine and the West were essentially attempting to defend the independence of a sovereign state and forestall future conflict. The biggest moral shocks, however, even considering the lowest of expectations, have been seen on the battlefield and according to the rules of jus in bello. Targeted killings of civilians, wanton destruction of infrastructure, rape, plundering, and torture are all reliably reported to an extent that simply cannot be ignored. Soldiers without proper training are sent into battle. Little internal discipline can be discerned. This is a crime not only against those being cruelly attacked, but also against the Russian soldiers who are sent into battle without the preparation and professional education they – and all of us – should legitimately expect. President Vladimir Putin always recites litanies of grievances against the West in order to legitimize these policies. But even if there should be truth to some of his historical accusations, two wrongs never make a right. As academics we often observe events through the lens of the spectator, neutrally analyzing what is transpiring, and placing it into theoretical categories. But as engaged participants in the debate about military ethics we cannot be merely spectators, we are always participants. The Norwegian philosopher Hans Skjervheim, in a classic essay from 1957, wrote wisely about the difference between being “Participant and Observer” (“Deltakar og tilskodar”). Skjervheim poignantly challenges our tendency to see the academic’s stance as distanced and cold. By all means, we ought always to be balanced and not let our political or other preferences unduly influence our academic research. And we should always listen to all sides of every story. But we must never close our eyes to cynical attacks on human dignity. And this brings us back to the bottom line of military ethics: Armed force should never be used except as a necessary response to armed aggression, and always with the utmost care for protecting civilians and abiding by International Humanitarian Law. In the name of nationalism, endless grievances, and twisted realpolitik, Vladimir Putin is knowingly ignoring all of