Even Wars Have Rules
None that can’t be overlooked in a pinch, unfortunately.
“If it’s natural to kill, how come men go into training to learn how?” Joan Baez
Vladimir Putin hates the word “war.” He hates it so much, newscasters in Russia can be jailed for saying it, and dissidents can be sent to penal colonies.
It’s not that Putin’s hung up on the word itself. He’s more concerned with the implication of war. It seems you can have an “armed conflict,” or even a “limited invasion,” and nobody gives it much thought.
Start a war, though, and suddenly you’re in front of a War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, charged with breaking the sanctity of war itself.
It seems wars have rules, according to the Geneva Convention, a covenant of 429 rules of law, established back in 1949.
You can’t go into a country, for instance, and deliberately bomb its citizenry.
These rules explain what you can or can’t do in an armed conflict.
You can’t go into a country, for instance, and deliberately bomb its citizenry. You’re supposed to stick to military targets.
However, what constitutes a military target and what constitutes a citizen one is a bit fuzzy. Bombs tend to go where bombs will go. If a hospital, orphanage or school gets hit, it’s hard to know if it was intentional or not.
In Putin’s case, it’s never intentional. He prefers to call it “propaganda.” Like in Bucha where civilian bodies were found in the streets, hands bound, a bullet to the head.
“They were put there by the Ukrainians themselves,” Putin’s Foreign Minster, Sergey Lavrov, explained to the UN last week.
Nobody believes that — not even Putin — but he does believe doubt can be just as powerful as proof. He only wishes this was 1949. Fewer photographic records existed back then. Now every cellphone can send a running account of atrocities around the world in a matter of minutes.
Putin’s no fan of technology. As far as he’s concerned, the Ukrainians are using it a bit too effectively, and that’s a problem for him. The more they pull heartstrings with dead bodies, the more the world opens their pursestrings.
He also risks upsetting the UN Security Council, which is far worse than pissing off some Ukrainians. The UN Security Council takes a dim view of members engaging in deliberate murder, rape, or mass persecution.
“If you expect every soldier to act like a gentleman, this war could go on for a very long time.”
It’s called “crimes against humanity,” and nobody likes you flaunting these rules. You can’t just say, “Who’s to know what’s frisky and what’s fratricide?” or, “If you expect every soldier to act like a gentleman, this war could go on for a very long time.”
These old chestnuts don’t get you very far, especially if you’re already guilty of destroying infrastructure that’s vital to a country’s survival. That’s right up there in the Geneva Convention rules, too.
Again, Putin likes to pull out his old standbys, as he did in Syria, Belarus and now in the Ukraine. Bombs go where bombs go, and it’s not like the Ukrainians didn’t have plenty of warning. If they’d left in the early stages, well, hell, the infrastructure wouldn’t be vital now, would it?
Then there’s the question of “human toll.” It states specifically in the Geneva Convention that sick and wounded must be cared for — including injured soldiers who have rights as prisoners of war.
Then there’s the word Putin hates more than “war,” “autocrat” or “murderer,” and that’s “genocide.”
Surely that can’t be applied in this conflict. Putin’s own army isn’t exactly being treated humanely. Medicines— even rations — are in short supply, not to mention doctors and ambulances. Conscripts are being sent into Ukraine wearing running shoes. Frostbite is rampant, not to mention starvation.
Who can think about decency when you can’t be decent with your own people?
Then there’s the word Putin hates more than “war,” “autocrat” or “murderer,” and that’s “genocide.” They’ve tried to pin that title on his actions multiple times, including in Afghanistan and Chechnya. Somehow he’s survived condemnation and even improved his image with the Russian people.
That won’t happen with this invasion in Ukraine. Eventually, cities like Bucha, Mariupol, Kharkiv and Kherson will unveil atrocities that can’t be explained away as propaganda and Ukrainian deceit. Bodies are bodies and mass graves take on a visually incriminating nature.
Not that this necessarily means we’ll have a War Crimes Tribunal any time soon. It’s hard to try a man who’s still engaged in an invasion. You also need a period of “dust settling” before the legal side takes over.
That may not happen for months or years.
Nobody wants to see him skate. At the same time, nobody wants WWIII.
Military experts are predicting a protracted war. Possibly it could end with negotiations that could indemnify Putin. Nobody wants to see him skate. Then again, nobody wants WWIII.
Putin’s counting on this, just as President Biden is counting on the Russian people losing faith in Putin. As much as Russians want a return to the glorification of the USSR, sanctions and world condemnation tend to leave many wondering if they should just leave Russia the way it is.
Besides, this war has revealed secrets no doubt embarrassing to Putin himself. One drone photo shows his mansion on the Black Sea ($956M to build), another his $50M yacht. You don’t go spending that kind of money if there isn’t considerably more stashed away.
Putin could be the richest man in the world.
For a country that prides itself on self sacrifice, Putin obviously isn’t practising what he preaches. Not that the Russian people are aware of his wealth or his malfeasance. Putin keeps a tight reign on information—or has so far.
That would be especially irksome for Putin, especially if his assets — and those of his many oligarchs — are used as war reparations.
That could change dramatically in the next couple of weeks. If this “war”—which Putin still claims it isn’t—takes a disastrous turn, he may find himself stripped of his power and his possessions.
That would be especially irksome for Putin, especially if his assets — and those of his many oligarchs — are used as war reparations.
It’s all still theoretical at this point. No doubt Russian newscasters and politicians are still trying to think of synonyms for “war.” “Limited engagement” seems to be a favourite.
The reason “war” remains verboten is simple: If this conflict results in a win for the Ukrainians—or even a stalemate—Putin will still have to face a War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague (unless he’s indemnified as I mentioned earlier).
There, he’ll have to rely on his last card, that being semantics. He’ll say “What war?” and the tribunal will be slightly stuck. No “war” no “war crimes.”
Slippery, I know, but we’re dealing with a autocrat who believes in semantics, mostly because—in an autocratic world—semantics work.
Putin is a gambler, but also a liar and a cheat.
Whether they will at a War Crimes Tribunal is anybody’s guess. Putin is a gambler, but also a liar and a cheat. The next few months will determine whether that’s enough to keep him out of the ICCs reaches.
Then again, Russia isn’t a signatory of the ICC, so there’s the question of jurisdiction.
In other words, this could take years. Meanwhile, Putin can go on being a liar and a cheat. He may lose some of his assets, but liars and cheats always figure out ways to get more. Putin is definitely one of them.
Robert Cormack is a blogger and author of “You Can Lead A Horse to Water (But You Can’t Make It Scuba Dive).” You can join him every day by subscribing to robertcormack@medium.com/subscription.
