The current Russian-Ukrainian war has sparked global debates on what a simple peace could imply. The Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy emphasizes a “peace” which includes the restoration of the sovereignty and repairs of Ukraine in Russia. Other proposals – ranging from the gel battle lines to the territorial concessions – reflect competing visions of resolution. But what does justice need after such a conflict? Right after the warA concept of just war theory which deals with the morality of the end of wars, establishes a framework to strengthen peace which meets both immediate needs and long -term stability. This article will examine the application of Right after the war to the Russian-Ukrainian war and describe ideal peace in case to end it.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to restore peace, but that does not mean restoring the pre-war The status quo. As Michael Walzer explains in his chapter in Ethics beyond the end of the warThese are the exact conditions that brought the conflict and allowed the attacker to wage war. Thus, a safer and fair situation is necessary than that which existed before the war. Ukraine fights a defensive war just by respecting the juice in bello Principles, while Russia raped international law by invading Ukraine with its war crimes who commit soldiers against the Ukrainians, which makes peace proposed by Russia not only unfair but also false, preparing a more aggression in -depth.
In his book, The morality of war, which is considered one of the most complete works of the just war, Brian Orend has defined a thin theory of post-war justice made up of six main points: terms of peace declared publicly, the exchange of prisoners of war, the essays of war crime, the official apology for the aggression, all war gains and demilitarization. Although the first three points are relatively simple because the terms of the peace agreement must be announced to citizens of the two nations and the international community, prisoners of war should be brought home, and Russian officials, including the Political and military leaders, should be tried for the trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, the last three points are more complicated.
As a legal successor to the USSR, Russia has never apologized for the countries it occupied for crimes and devastation inflicted during this period. The Ukrainians suffered a lot during the Soviet occupation in the 20th century, notably the Holodomore genocide, followed by the Russian hybrid war and the large -scale invasion of the 21st century. The Russian government and the scientific community actively deny these crimes, making any necessary but unprecedented step towards reconciliation.
Official apologies from a post-right post-right government would mark a new stage towards Russian decolonization and post-imperialism. Asking for forgiveness on behalf of the Russian nation for all crimes, including those committed during the Soviet occupation, is the only way to potential reconciliation. However, similar to the Speech by Chancellor Adenauer asking for forgiveness for the crimes of Nazi Germany, this should only be a start for additional cooperation to condemn Russian actions and discover the truth about the crimes committed.
According to Olend, to establish a fair peace, an attacker must return all the unjust war gains. In the case of Russia, this would be a return of all the Ukrainian territories occupied after 2014, including Crimea. The annexation of Crimea marked a turning point in the dissolution of international law. The after-war Russian state cannot be reinstated in the world community without adhering to the standards of international policy. This means that Russia will have to undergo a constitutional amendment to reject its allegations in the Ukrainian sovereign territories and respect the international borders of Ukraine.
Demilitarization is essential to ensure that attack will not be repeated. Although the reduction of Russia’s offensive military capacities is critical, special attention must be paid to its nuclear weapons, which have supported its aggressive foreign policy. Russian nuclear arsenal was an engine of its imperialism offering Russia a Balance card in international affairs. In the same way, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan were conditioned to abandon their nuclear weapons after the collapse of the USSR in exchange for international recognition, the future of the Russian government after the war should be forced to gradually dispose of its nuclear capacities. Orend argues that possession of WMDS requires a recent stable history of non -aggression – a standard that Russia has clearly raped. By violating peace, an attacker turned out to be unable to manage the responsibility for having ADMs, which makes Russia too risky keeping them.
Once a thin post-war justice is established, Orend maintains that peace establishments, or Ukraine and the West, are faced with a choice between remuneration and rehabilitation. Should Russia be punished by paying repairs and sanctions, or should it be reintegrated? The total costs of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine amount to $ 486 billion, excluding debts contracted during the war, human suffering and lost economic potential. An attacker is responsible for reimbursing these costs Right after the warwhich is not considered as a punishment but as a duty of aggressor. Various strategies have been developed to force Russia to pay repairs, mainly focusing on the entry of frozen Russian assets. Although it is an important first step, an additional mechanism must be implemented to ensure Russian financial responsibility for the reconstruction of Ukraine and to compensate for the atrocities committed.
The creation of a new Post-Putin Russian government could determine the reintegration of Russia into global society and a progressive lifting of sanctions, given that it is a democratic regime that adheres to the principles of justice thin justice post-war period. The West can consider restoring relations with Russia, which takes a step towards reconciliation and accepts the restrictions necessary to prevent future aggression. Nevertheless, a Russian regime rejecting the principles of peace or an unjust end of war like an agreement of ceasefire would justify prolonging and introducing new sanctions and embargoes. It will be a moral duty of the West to keep Russia restrictions from preventing it from continuing its assault.
Overall, the complete Right after the war Does not seem possible for the Russian-Ukrainian war because Russia is determined to fight until the end and the West is reluctant to make decisive decisions in search of rapid peace. As new proposals for resolving the war arise, it is crucial to have a guide on what real peace looks like. The liberation of prisoners, trials on war crime, official apology, the return of territories, repairs and demilitarization, are essential for Right after the war And everything that will not be this will constitute an unjust peace that could bring new conflicts to the future.
Read more in -depth on international relations
