It is a sign of the heightened tensions between Russia and Ukraine that for a few hours this week, а meandering, half-century-old Ukrainian naval ship seemed like it could spark a worrisome military escalation.

The ship, according to Ukrainian officials, was unarmed and involved in a simple training exercise Thursday in a small but strategic waterway bordered by Ukraine to the west and Russia to the east. It seemed to be primarily an example of the Ukrainian navy’s decrepitude, although it’s possible that Ukraine, too, could have been trying to push the boundaries and provoke Russia.

Either way, the Russian security services and state news media quickly seized on the encounter, portraying it as an imminent threat.

Russia’s domestic spy service, the FSB, announced late in the evening that it had intercepted the ship for failing to obey orders. That set off the Kremlin’s propagandists, who played up the move as a prelude to war. RT, a Russian government television station, began livestreaming coverage on YouTube under the headline “UKRAINIAN PROVOCATION,” with a military analyst suggesting the ship should be blown out of the water.

“This is the provocation everyone has been waiting for,” Andrei Medvedev, an RT contributor wrote.

In the end, it was not, as the vessel returned to port without incident.

A lumbering ship may not yet be enough to provoke a full-on Russian assault. But with Moscow having amassed nearly 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders, along with tanks, fighter aircraft and ballistic missiles, people on all sides of the conflict are jumpy.

The brief flare-up not only underscores the dangers inherent in the conflict between Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists, but also suggests that the situation remains volatile even after a video call this week between President Joe Biden and President Vladimir Putin of Russia aimed at ratcheting down tensions.

Putin’s rhetoric on Ukraine has become increasingly ominous. And Ukrainian troops are arrayed along a 250-mile barricade of trenches and fortifications that regularly erupts in machine gun and artillery fire as they face off against the separatists in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine.

Much is riding on diplomatic efforts in the next days and weeks, experts said.

“I think that it’s obviously tense, but it’s not like we’re ready to roll,” said Eugene Rumer, director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Rumer raised the possibility that, once Russia makes the decision to invade, it could use a minor incident as justification.

“If Putin realizes this conversation with Biden is not going anywhere, that he’s not getting what he wants, that this is hopeless, then I can imagine that a drone incident or a shell that somebody lobs could provide the pretext to pull the trigger,” he said.

Indeed, the decision by the FSB to intercept a seemingly harmless ship, combined with the furious reaction from the Kremlin’s propagandists, has unnerved Ukrainian and Western officials, who fear that it serves as a model for how the Kremlin could use a contrived excuse to invade.

Ukrainian observers said they found the timing of the FSB’s announcement suspicious. It came out around the time the government released the details of a telephone call between Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and Biden.

In a statement on Twitter, the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv delivered an unusually pointed response, saying that the Ukrainian ship did nothing illegal and accusing the Russian government of intentionally ginning up a controversy.

“Russia’s false allegations are part of its ongoing campaign to distract from its latest aggressive, provocative action,” the embassy wrote.

The ship — ironically named Donbass, the heart of the separatist territory — was intercepted in the Sea of Azov near the Kerch Strait, a narrow passage near Russian-occupied Crimea over which Ukraine and Russia have repeatedly clashed. In 2018, Russian forces opened fire on several Ukrainian naval vessels and arrested a number of sailors, whom they accused of straying into territorial waters that the Kremlin claimed as its own after the annexation of Crimea.

The FSB said the Donbass had refused to obey orders to divert from a course leading to the Kerch Strait. “These actions represent a threat to the safety of navigation,” its statement said.

According to Ukrainian officials, the ship never came closer than 18 nautical miles from the disputed waterway.

Ukrainian and Western officials say that Russian authorities, including Putin, seem to be previewing their rationalizations for an invasion. This month, Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned that Russia had “intensified disinformation to paint Ukraine as the aggressor to justify pre-planned military action.”

These efforts appeared to continue even after the video call between Putin and Biden.

In defiance of all evidence to the contrary, Putin on Thursday accused Ukrainian authorities of carrying out “a genocide” against the residents of the Donbass. Although civilians in the separatist territories live under the protection of Russian-backed military forces, Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT and one of the Kremlin’s chief propagandists, immediately amplified the claims, suggesting she hoped Russia would come to the residents’ rescue.

“Mother Russia has more than once saved millions from different forms of genocide,” she wrote on Telegram.

“I don’t know if he had that in mind,” she said of Putin, “but I certainly hope he did.”

The bellicose statements come against the backdrop of continuing violence along the so-called line of control separating Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists. On Thursday, two Ukrainian service members were wounded in attacks on front-line positions, the country’s military press service reported.

Meanwhile, the buildup of Russian troops on the border shows no sign of abating. Russia’s Defense Ministry announced that tank divisions from the western military district had practiced taking out anti-tank rockets similar to the Javelins provided by the United States and now deployed by Ukrainian forces in the country’s east. The exercises were held at training grounds in the Voronezh region, less than 200 miles from the Russia-Ukraine border.

Valery Gerasimov, chief of the Russian General Staff, warned in remarks to military attachés Thursday that worsening tensions in the region could force Russia to respond. In his statement, he specifically mentioned Russia’s opposition to the Javelins, which Ukrainian forces have not yet used on the battlefield, as well as Turkish-made Bayraktar drones, which have been used to attack separatists positions.

“Any provocation by the Ukrainian authorities to solve the problems of Donbass using force will be suppressed,” he said.

It is a sign of the heightened tensions between Russia and Ukraine that for a few hours this week, а meandering, half-century-old Ukrainian naval ship seemed like it could spark a worrisome military escalation.

It is a sign of the heightened tensions between Russia and Ukraine that for a few hours this week, а meandering, half-century-old Ukrainian naval ship seemed like it could spark a worrisome military escalation. The ship, according to Ukrainian officials, was unarmed and involved in a simple training exercise Thursday in a small but strategic waterway bordered by Ukraine to the west and Russia to the east. It seemed to be primarily an example of the Ukrainian navy’s decrepitude, although it’s possible that Ukraine, too, could have been trying to push the boundaries and provoke Russia. Either way, the Russian security services and state news media quickly seized on the encounter, portraying it as an imminent threat. Russia’s domestic spy service, the FSB, announced late in the evening that it had intercepted the ship for failing to obey orders. That set off the Kremlin’s propagandists, who played up the move as a prelude to war. RT, a Russian government television station, began livestreaming coverage on YouTube under the headline “UKRAINIAN PROVOCATION,” with a military analyst suggesting the ship should be blown out of the water. “This is the provocation everyone has been waiting for,” Andrei Medvedev, an RT contributor wrote. In the end, it was not, as the vessel returned to port without incident. A lumbering ship may not yet be enough to provoke a full-on Russian assault. But with Moscow having amassed nearly 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders, along with tanks, fighter aircraft and ballistic missiles, people on all sides of the conflict are jumpy. The brief flare-up not only underscores the dangers inherent in the conflict between Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists, but also suggests that the situation remains volatile even after a video call this week between President Joe Biden and President Vladimir Putin of Russia aimed at ratcheting down tensions. Putin’s rhetoric on Ukraine has become increasingly ominous. And Ukrainian troops are arrayed along a 250-mile barricade of trenches and fortifications that regularly erupts in machine gun and artillery fire as they face off against the separatists in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine. Much is riding on diplomatic efforts in the next days and weeks, experts said. “I think that it’s obviously tense, but it’s not like we’re ready to roll,” said Eugene Rumer, director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Rumer raised the possibility that, once Russia makes the decision to invade, it could use a minor incident as justification. “If Putin realizes this conversation with Biden is not going anywhere, that he’s not getting what he wants, that this is hopeless, then I can imagine that a drone incident or a shell that somebody lobs could provide the pretext to pull the trigger,” he said. Indeed, the decision by the FSB to intercept a seemingly harmless ship, combined with the furious reaction from the Kremlin’s propagandists, has unnerved Ukrainian and Western officials, who fear that it serves as a model for how the Kremlin could use a contrived excuse to invade. Ukrainian observers said they found the timing of the FSB’s announcement suspicious. It came out around the time the government released the details of a telephone call between Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and Biden. In a statement on Twitter, the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv delivered an unusually pointed response, saying that the Ukrainian ship did nothing illegal and accusing the Russian government of intentionally ginning up a controversy. “Russia’s false allegations are part of its ongoing campaign to distract from its latest aggressive, provocative action,” the embassy wrote. The ship — ironically named Donbass, the heart of the separatist territory — was intercepted in the Sea of Azov near the Kerch Strait, a narrow passage near Russian-occupied Crimea over which Ukraine and Russia have repeatedly clashed. In 2018, Russian forces opened fire on several Ukrainian naval vessels and arrested a number of sailors, whom they accused of straying into territorial waters that the Kremlin claimed as its own after the annexation of Crimea. The FSB said the Donbass had refused to obey orders to divert from a course leading to the Kerch Strait. “These actions represent a threat to the safety of navigation,” its statement said. According to Ukrainian officials, the ship never came closer than 18 nautical miles from the disputed waterway. Ukrainian and Western officials say that Russian authorities, including Putin, seem to be previewing their rationalizations for an invasion. This month, Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned that Russia had “intensified disinformation to paint Ukraine as the aggressor to justify pre-planned military action.” These efforts appeared to continue even after the video call between Putin and Biden. In defiance of all evidence to the contrary, Putin on Thursday accused Ukrainian authorities of carrying out “a genocide” against the residents of the Donbass. Although civilians in the separatist territories live under the protection of Russian-backed military forces, Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of RT and one of the Kremlin’s chief propagandists, immediately amplified the claims, suggesting she hoped Russia would come to the residents’ rescue. “Mother Russia has more than once saved millions from different forms of genocide,” she wrote on Telegram. “I don’t know if he had that in mind,” she said of Putin, “but I certainly hope he did.” The bellicose statements come against the backdrop of continuing violence along the so-called line of control separating Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed separatists. On Thursday, two Ukrainian service members were wounded in attacks on front-line positions, the country’s military press service reported. Meanwhile, the buildup of Russian troops on the border shows no sign of abating. Russia’s Defense Ministry announced that tank divisions from the western military district had practiced taking out anti-tank rockets similar to the Javelins provided by the United States and now deployed by Ukrainian forces in the country’s east. The exercises were held at training grounds in the Voronezh region, less than 200 miles from the Russia-Ukraine border. Valery Gerasimov, chief of the Russian General Staff, warned in remarks to military attachés Thursday that worsening tensions in the region could force Russia to respond. In his statement, he specifically mentioned Russia’s opposition to the Javelins, which Ukrainian forces have not yet used on the battlefield, as well as Turkish-made Bayraktar drones, which have been used to attack separatists positions. “Any provocation by the Ukrainian authorities to solve the problems of Donbass using force will be suppressed,” he said.

Russia-Ukraine sea encounter highlights jittery nerves in the region

Military thinkers, strategists and philosophers have grappled with the issue of war and peace since perhaps time immemorial. One major strand that has emerged from this is the ‘theory of just war’. Based on two major criteria-right to go to war (jus ad bellum) and right conduct in war( jus in Bello)-that apparently render war morally justifiable, just war theory, whose earliest proponent was Saint Augustine, holds that war is not always the worst option. The claim embedded in the just war theory is a bold one. But, is it right? Can war ever be justified and just? Is there something morally and practically wrong with the just war? Last but the least, does the just war theory hold in or under conditions of post-modernity?

There is something fundamentally wrong in positing that war can be just. The reasons, in the main, pertain to the fluidity of conditions in war and combat which is essentially in the nature of a zero-sum, Hobbesian struggle where it's you or me thinking or rationalizations dominate. In this, ‘if I don’t kill you first, you will kill me’ thinking, morality, ethical and humanitarian considerations naturally fly out of the window. But assuming there is something to the just war theory, who decides to go war? Who has the right to wage war? In the law of the jungle, that is the world of states, it is strong that determine issues of war and peace; the weak are at the sufferance of the strong. Yes, in modern times, there are notable and laudable institutions that are designed to maintain peace and prevent war, but as the Second Gulf War demonstrated, the ‘Parliament of Man’ can be superseded if a powerful state is determined to go to war.

Moreover, in modern conditions, where nuclear weapons, by and large, act as a deterrent to war, generally speaking, wars assume the shape of sub-conventional wars: that is, militarised conflicts that do not necessarily constitute conventional war but are wars nonetheless. There are also intra state conflicts that grew in salience during the cold war and even after. There then is a grey area of war. But does this make wars any just? No is the answer. War is war, a deplorable, inhumane and inhuman activity that depraves and debases both combatants and statesmen who order it and makes whole populations suffer.

What about the theory that a quick, short war made possible by technology or Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) can be a decisive one leading to peace thereafter? This theory that gained traction in the initial days of the second Gulf War met its Waterloo in Iraq , so to speak where a raging insurgency ensued and military planners and strategists had to go back to ‘old school’ counterinsurgency theories and practice. There is also the issue of an exit strategy here. Once begun wars are notoriously difficult to end even if there is an initial exit plan because of the very nature of war and the contingency it implies.

But there is another aspect to the saga. In conditions of post-modernity, where overt wars are not easy to wage (unless a state is a major power), and there are institutional and nuclear checks to war, the notion of hybrid war has emerged. Hybrid warfare incorporates elements of the political, unconventional war, economic war, cyber-attacks plus psychological dimensions like fake news, planted news and so one made eminently possible now by social media. (An example of this would be Russia’s meddling in the 2016 US elections). Hybrid war makes a mockery of the just war theory and renders it almost meaningless. But, are hybrid wars if an amendment or allowance is made to just war theory, justified? No. They are not.

If no war is ever justified, but given that war has been a feature of the human condition, how can it be prevented? This is a million-dollar question that lends itself to no easy answers. But, the answer, if there is any lies in the domain of the institutional, the political and the economic. Institutionally, the Parliament of Man, that is, the United Nations must be strengthened and multilateralism ( not as a fetter but as an ideal) be rendered the operative dynamic of interstate relations and diplomacy. Politically, a discursive attempt must be made too discredit war and diplomacy held to be the option of choice in dealing with conflict. These two approaches can be complemented by developing and crystallizing trading relationships between states in a way that, if breached, hurts all sides. These options cannot be on a stand-alone basis. 
 
There are clear interrelationships between these. There then must be an integrated approach that links these elements together and makes war unjustifiable and relegated to the dust bin or history. Is this a realist approach? No. It is not. I plead guilty to the charge of idealism here but, in the final analysis, it is ideals, not ‘reality’ that determine the course of history. Let then steps be taken to abolish war from statecraft and history. A good start would be to invert &nbsp;the Clausewitz dictum that, ‘ war is diplomacy by other means’ to ‘ all war is bad politics and economics

&nbsp;(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

Military thinkers, strategists and philosophers have grappled with the issue of war and peace since perhaps time immemorial. One major strand that has emerged from this is the ‘theory of just war’.

Military thinkers, strategists and philosophers have grappled with the issue of war and peace since perhaps time immemorial. One major strand that has emerged from this is the ‘theory of just war’. Based on two major criteria-right to go to war (jus ad bellum) and right conduct in war( jus in Bello)-that apparently render war morally justifiable, just war theory, whose earliest proponent was Saint Augustine, holds that war is not always the worst option. The claim embedded in the just war theory is a bold one. But, is it right? Can war ever be justified and just? Is there something morally and practically wrong with the just war? Last but the least, does the just war theory hold in or under conditions of post-modernity? There is something fundamentally wrong in positing that war can be just. The reasons, in the main, pertain to the fluidity of conditions in war and combat which is essentially in the nature of a zero-sum, Hobbesian struggle where it's you or me thinking or rationalizations dominate. In this, ‘if I don’t kill you first, you will kill me’ thinking, morality, ethical and humanitarian considerations naturally fly out of the window. But assuming there is something to the just war theory, who decides to go war? Who has the right to wage war? In the law of the jungle, that is the world of states, it is strong that determine issues of war and peace; the weak are at the sufferance of the strong. Yes, in modern times, there are notable and laudable institutions that are designed to maintain peace and prevent war, but as the Second Gulf War demonstrated, the ‘Parliament of Man’ can be superseded if a powerful state is determined to go to war. Moreover, in modern conditions, where nuclear weapons, by and large, act as a deterrent to war, generally speaking, wars assume the shape of sub-conventional wars: that is, militarised conflicts that do not necessarily constitute conventional war but are wars nonetheless. There are also intra state conflicts that grew in salience during the cold war and even after. There then is a grey area of war. But does this make wars any just? No is the answer. War is war, a deplorable, inhumane and inhuman activity that depraves and debases both combatants and statesmen who order it and makes whole populations suffer. What about the theory that a quick, short war made possible by technology or Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) can be a decisive one leading to peace thereafter? This theory that gained traction in the initial days of the second Gulf War met its Waterloo in Iraq , so to speak where a raging insurgency ensued and military planners and strategists had to go back to ‘old school’ counterinsurgency theories and practice. There is also the issue of an exit strategy here. Once begun wars are notoriously difficult to end even if there is an initial exit plan because of the very nature of war and the contingency it implies. But there is another aspect to the saga. In conditions of post-modernity, where overt wars are not easy to wage (unless a state is a major power), and there are institutional and nuclear checks to war, the notion of hybrid war has emerged. Hybrid warfare incorporates elements of the political, unconventional war, economic war, cyber-attacks plus psychological dimensions like fake news, planted news and so one made eminently possible now by social media. (An example of this would be Russia’s meddling in the 2016 US elections). Hybrid war makes a mockery of the just war theory and renders it almost meaningless. But, are hybrid wars if an amendment or allowance is made to just war theory, justified? No. They are not. If no war is ever justified, but given that war has been a feature of the human condition, how can it be prevented? This is a million-dollar question that lends itself to no easy answers. But, the answer, if there is any lies in the domain of the institutional, the political and the economic. Institutionally, the Parliament of Man, that is, the United Nations must be strengthened and multilateralism ( not as a fetter but as an ideal) be rendered the operative dynamic of interstate relations and diplomacy. Politically, a discursive attempt must be made too discredit war and diplomacy held to be the option of choice in dealing with conflict. These two approaches can be complemented by developing and crystallizing trading relationships between states in a way that, if breached, hurts all sides. These options cannot be on a stand-alone basis. There are clear interrelationships between these. There then must be an integrated approach that links these elements together and makes war unjustifiable and relegated to the dust bin or history. Is this a realist approach? No. It is not. I plead guilty to the charge of idealism here but, in the final analysis, it is ideals, not ‘reality’ that determine the course of history. Let then steps be taken to abolish war from statecraft and history. A good start would be to invert the Clausewitz dictum that, ‘ war is diplomacy by other means’ to ‘ all war is bad politics and economics (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

There's something fundamentally wrong in positing that war can be just

A group of foreign reporters on a trip to Syria organised by the Russian Defense Ministry were on Wednesday shown an elaborate network of caves in the strategic northwestern Idlib province said to have been used as a major rebel base.

Journalists see caves formerly used by rebels

Climate change protesters continued their demonstration across London on Friday. The Extinction Rebellion group has set up camps at major points in the UK capital including Oxford Circus, Waterloo Bridge and Westminster.

Activists keep up climate protests in London

war-and-unrest

War And Unrest, News on War And Unrest, stories on War And Unrest, articles on War And Unrest, War And Unrest stories at Wion, War And Unrest news, War And Unrest latest news

war and-unrest

Russia-Ukraine sea encounter highlights jittery nerves in the region

There's something fundamentally wrong in positing that war can be just

Journalists see caves formerly used by rebels

Activists keep up climate protests in London