UKRAINE: THE FUNDAMENTAL MORAL QUESTION

"The fundamental moral question," Elon Musk informs us, "is this: How many more years of death in trenches and billions of dollars of corruption do you want?"

It's a good question: the war has been going on far too long. But fundamental? I beg to differ. 

To begin with, it really isn't a moral question - it's a purely practical one. The conflict in Ukraine has plainly become a bottomless pit of lives and money - that's not in dispute. Whether the means used thus far to win the battle have been effective in terms of blood and treasure is certainly a question worth asking. But it's a question better answered by strategists and accountants than moralists. The question anyone concerned with moral issues should be asking is quite different: Is this a battle worth fighting? That's the really fundamental question.

Here the lines are clearer. What is Ukraine fighting for? Is it fighting to obtain more territory or resources from its neighbours? No. Is it trying to redraw its borders along ethnic or cultural lines? Again, no. It is simply trying to preserve its territorial and cultural integrity from a military invasion launched with exactly those things in mind. For Russia is indeed fighting to acquire territory and resources for itself, and attempting to create new borders along ethnic and cultural lines.

The moral question turns on your response to that fact: do you think Russia is right to invade its neighbour by force, and Ukraine wrong to defend itself from a violent and ruthless military onslaught? If so, there's no need to read on. You're simply turning your back on the last 100 years of thinking about war, and announcing yourself to be a fascist. But if not, the choice is clear: from a moral perspective we ought to be helping Ukraine fight on. 

That moral choice may not be convenient, any more than it was during the Second World War when Britain - who could have turned a blind eye - chose to take on the fight with Hitler. It was a long and ruinous battle that ultimately cost Britain its empire - but it was the correct, moral choice, and Britain's reputation on the world stage was enhanced by it. So the US must now also decide. Does it back Ukraine by standing up for what is morally right, or not? For if it throws in the towel and abandons Ukraine to its fate, the world will not forget the choice it made.

Because it won't have been a moral one.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ukraine: Time to stand up and be counted...

Image
Boris Yeltsin, P resident Bill Clinton, Leonid Kuchma  and John Major signing the Budapest Memorandum in December 1994 Let’s just get this straight. At the last count Vladimir Putin was in violation of at least three international treaties that the Russian Federation is signed up to. First, the UN Charter, which amongst other things prohibits signatories from using force – or even the threat of it – in the settlement of international disputes. Second, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which commits them to respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine within its existing borders. And third, the protocol of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits attacks on “installations containing dangerous forces” – such as the nuclear power station they’ve been shelling. Not to mention that the intentional targeting of civilians and civilian buildings also constitutes a crime under international humanitarian law. No matter what the justification, Putin is way out of line. Yet so far, he's getting away with i...
Read more
Image
  WHY ARE WE SLEEPWALKING INTO ARMAGEDDON? Russia's President Putin has now said that if NATO forces assist Ukraine by providing long-range missiles that can strike deep into Russia, it will mean the NATO allies are at war with Russia, and he will respond in kind. And without any other framing context, he is perfectly entitled to do so. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and NATO has no business in getting involved beyond the ancient code of war: act in your own interest; might is right.  But in the context of war with Russia, this is the counsel of fools. Russia is a nuclear power, and although it has thus far hesitated to use nukes, there is no doubt it would do so if it ever felt its territory and defence capabilities were being seriously threatened. And even if the current conflict only continues on a tit-for-tat basis, NATO cannot defeat Putin without risking the ultimate option, and bringing on Armageddon. So why are they playing this dangerous game, one that cannot be won...
Read more

Auditioning for an audiobook

Image
Just spent a fascinating few days listening to auditions sent in by prospective narrators for an audiobook version of my book SPEECH! How Language Made Us Human  -- which I hope will be released in mid-December (just in time for Xmas 😉). I've not done this before, and was astonished both at the range of voices sent in and the very different ways they chose to read the script I'd chosen for the audition -- the introduction to the book. As a writer, you inevitably hear your own voice as you write, so it's a rather odd experience to hear your words being read aloud not just in another voice, but even in a different persona. It must be even more extraordinary for a playwright or a scriptwriter, as their words are not only translated into different voices, but are literally brought to life in ways they may never have imagined.  They say a work of art no longer belongs to the artist once it is finished, because people will interpret it in different ways. It certainly felt like...
Read more