Most people hate war, especially soldiers, so why does it happen?

The problem is that war is an option of last resort. Ideally, all other options have been explored before war happens, but from then on, politics is ‘extended by other means’, to paraphrase the Prussian General Carl Von Clausevitz. War will persist until it is possible to stop it; a process far harder to achieve than starting it!

Each conflict is a set of unique circumstances and different ways to reach a peace. At worst the war will become one of attrition and it becomes impossible for both sides to continue. Alternatively, political and public support for a war wanes or perhaps an overwhelming third force compels surrender.

You would like to think that ‘how to stop a war’ is taught in military academies, but such executive decisions are more likely made my politicians rather than military leaders and politicians usually have no experience of ‘conflict resolution’ at this scale. Even in wars which have been wars of attrition, the conclusion of war requires considerable diplomatic skill. For if one side is forced into conditions of surrender that are too onerous and dishonourable, the process of recovery becomes excessively hard and national pride will almost certainly wish to seek redress sometime in the future.

The world might have learnt this lesson at the conclusion of the first world war, which was one of attrition and the intervention of a third party; the USA. The armistice terms demanded by the Allies, were so severe that they left a ticking time bomb, ready to start of the second world war.

The present war in Ukraine has been described by some as the beginning of the third world war, but there is another view. It could be argued that what is happening in Ukraine since 2004, when Russia annexed parts of Ukraine and later the Crimean peninsula, is an unfinished rumble from the second world war.

In that war, an American General raced against the Russians to roll his tanks into Berlin ; General George Patten. The politicians tolerated his outspoken gaffs, because he was a superb military leader. Patten was of the opinion that the allies should continue to Moscow and finish the war for good.

The politicians ignored his advice and the United States spent the next few decades fighting the influence of communism in what became known as, Mc Carthy era. Countries such as Cuba, China, Russia and Vietnam caused considerable headaches for the American politicians and military; awakening a culture of suspicion of ‘reds under the bed’.

There is an argument that the present war in Ukraine is unfinished communist expansionism in Europe. President Putin justified invading sovereign Ukraine to the Russian people, by stating that his strategic aim is to defend Russia against an expanding NATO threat. The two allies of the second world war were now facing each other; just as General Patten envisaged was needed to end the war.

The technology of war inevitably played it’s part in this conclusion. The use of the Atomic bomb by the USA in the Far East, brought the conflict there to a sudden halt. Communist sympathisers within the Allies, gave the secrets of the atom bomb and the Soviet Union. They speedily test fired an exact copy of the American atomic bomb, shocking the world. This mutual threat has forced an unsteady world peace ever since, dubbed ‘the Cold War’. Despite the efforts of the International Atomic Weapons Agency, set up to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nine or so countries now have them and others want it.

It is important to realise that after the fall and fragmentation of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was left with fifteen pressurised water reactors of Russian VVER design and importantly, Soviet era strategic nuclear weapons.

Three of these ex-Soviet countries were persuaded to give up their nuclear weapons in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear weapons between 1993 and 1996. The nuclear powers overseeing this process were the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Kingdom. They agreed not to use military force or economic coercion against these three countries unless for self defence or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The diplomats and lawyers who wrote the Budapest Memorandum were perhaps, not clear about what constitutes ‘self defence’. Most strategists and tacticions, know that the principle of striking the enemy before they hit you, creates an element of surprise that can bring about an early victory. Putin’s original ‘Special Military Operation’ was exactly this but, unfortunately for him, it didn’t knock out his opponent with the first punch. The surprise was Putin’s.

Putin constantly cites NATO as a growing threat, especially after the fall of Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych, Ukraine’s president from 2010 to 2014. Yanukovych had promised the Ukrainian people in his election manifesto, that Ukraine would apply to join the European Union or at least set up special trade agreements which would lead to this. But after a phone call from the Kremlin, he renaged on this promise and there were riots in the streets. These were violently suppressed by the government leading to over 100 deaths. Yanukovych fled to Russia and Volodymyr Zelenskyy was elected president on the promise of European integration. Europe responded with indirect support.

Ukraine is a convenient buffer state for NATO because it has arguably, prevented World War III. It has so far, been a narrow escape for all, provided Trump isn’t elected and gives in to the Russians. The USA has not been good the diplomacy of war and should have learnt some important lessons, such as from the war in Vietnam.

An indignant generation of young people in the United States rebelled against the war in Vietnam as it was played out graphically on their television screens. Newspaper reporters photographed the horror of war; photographs which stunned Americans and the world alike. Young men angrily burnt their call up papers in front of crowds of anti-war protesters as four successive Presidents presided over an unwinnable war. In a way, the protesters against this and later wars (such as the invasion of Iraq by the US and coalition forces in 2003) stuck their flag in the moral ‘high ground’. War was wrong.

Awakenings of conscience and consciousness happen at the individual level long before parliamentarians hear and reflect the ‘mood of the nation’. If war is going to be rejected as a method of ‘problem solving’, there has to be a global realisation of the immorality and futility of using violence against a fellow human being. It would be idealistic to suggest that this could happen in the near future but perhaps there is, a greater possibility for change than now, than there ever has been.

In my view, change will only happen with the introduction of a ‘third force’ which might be a charismatic world leader from this or another solar system, new technology or a third force with the means to eliminate humans, shared global problems of a catastrophic nature or just a spiritually and / or morally inspired realisation that violence is wrong.

The reference to ‘another solar system’ may have surprised readers! But the presence of advanced beings on earth is hardly a secret any more. The problem is that they are being characterised as violent and a threat to mankind. The narrative of ‘global security’ by successive U.S administrations, introduced ‘Star Wars’ under the Reagan and a whole new defence wing under Trump called the Space Development Agency. Hollywood has aided and abetted a global fear of invasion of ‘beings from outer space’ who wish humans harm.

The reality as described in Dr. Steven Greer’s film, ‘Close Encounters of a Fifth Kind’, is that highly evolved beings are watching and guiding us until we become peaceful towards each other and them.

Such a change of morals and consciousness is not a vain hope. There have been historical precedents. The crucifixion of one man in Roman Palestine, started a new religion based on love and compassion for all other people, including enemies.

Since then, sadly, religions have done as much to cause war as to prevent it. Countries at war, often claim that ‘God is on their side’ and yet logically, this cannot be true. Humans have free will and with that, responsibility.

The path to a planet where there is no war, is ultimately not in the hands of the politicians, lawyers, military leaders, religious leaders or industry; the arms industry has shown multiple times throughout history, that it is more interested in shares than ploughshares. The only possible novel outcome to being a victim of unrestrained violence, is for individuals to do nothing.

As the famous poster put it; ‘what if there was a war and nobody came?’

Mahatma Gandhi used non-violent protest to the British Raj, because that was how he was as an individual. His passive resistance, proved to be all that was needed to bring down the mighty British Raj in India. Peaceful overwhelming influence is an extraordinary power. When it fails, it makes powerful martyrs but when won, makes lasting peace. There will be a moment in the future for this to take place and until then we must wait.