I noticed that the American government very recently confirmed that yes, the murder of a daughter of a Russian nationalist with ties to Vladimir Putin was, indeed, committed by forces loyal to, or part of, the Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion, now seven months in and running. As if it could have been anyone else. (Maybe it could have; Putin is rumored to be in ill health, and maybe some of Russia's own citizens might have been interested in hurrying that along.)
But it makes some people feel better in some echelons that "official" verification of this somehow satisfies a need for accuracy. The ethics of such an act are now in "official" question.
That includes the accompanying statement that the Biden Administration, had it known, would have advised against it. That brings with it a whole bunch of other questions.
Such as: Is this announcement a very weak effort to appease Putin so he doesn't freak out and contemplate, more than he already has, the use of nuclear weapons to settle Ukraine once and for all? Is this an effort, again a weak one, to give the U.S. clean hands, although it sounds like the "damned spot" of Macbeth, one that cannot be removed no matter how hard you try?
Such as: Do you really think the particular Ukrainians who had this in mind would have rung up Anthony Blinken, the Secretary of State, or someone with similar juice in the American government, and asked for consultative assistance? Like, "We've got her set up now, so we need your okay. We won't tell a soul"?
You got hopes. Focus on this would be all about cherry-picking, though. Especially because Russian troops, in their all-out attempt to intimidate the Ukrainians and perhaps believing their own propaganda that Nazis infect the population, have murdered thousands of Ukrainian civilians. The killings are often willy-nilly, incredibly random, done by what seems to be mere impulse. Sometimes the Russians have even made up excuses, but usually not. (For more on this, please read Masha Gesson's article in The New Yorker, published on August 8. I don't keep the issues forever, but I kept this one.)
In the popular vernacular of the day, these are known as war crimes. But in that frame, war is supposed to be refined to the battlefield, where the people directly involved actually have on uniforms belonging to their side. Unfortunately for the Russians, their invasion hasn't worked the magic they've planned, so Ukraine still has most of its land and all of its court system left over. If they ever catch them, woe be to the Russians who have perpetrated these atrocities.
In the meantime, vengeance is to be expected. A message got sent to Putin with that assassination: We are coming for you. Not that that hasn't already been contemplated by his side: Little doubt remains that Vloydymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, would be left alive if his country is overrun by Russia, though right now that doesn't appear likely. Brave as he is, he is no more brave than his soldiers, and will die with them if worse comes to worst. That it would solidify a good place in the history written by those with a moral base may or may not be a comfort to the family he leaves behind. Make no mistake, either: the Russians are trying to kill him this very minute. They just can't get to him.
All of which makes the U.S. a side player in acts of warlike nature. Yes, we have supplied Ukraine with plenty of weapons, which they have clearly utilized to their benefit: the Russians, to this date, have lost territory previously conquered. The spending for this has, so far, been gladly paid by a Congress with a majority of its members who see the clear and unmistakeable threat to democracy overall. It's much the same as Lend-Lease, out of which we supplied the Allies against Germany and Japan before Pearl Harbor forced us in.
But that permission was razor-thin in the House of Representatives--it passed by exactly one vote--and I cannot help but think that, under the disgusting thumb of ex-, the Republican Party, should it take control of the House in January, might very well cut off funding in anticipation of another ridiculous term of its banner carrier, who has managed the greatest con job in American history. That would pave the way for ex- to take control again, shut down any attempts to even make Russia look bad, not to mention Ukraine's defense, and let ex- have his hotel to make money, the only thing he truly believes in, in Moscow in a horribly proportioned quid pro quo.
So what would we have done had we known ahead of time: threaten Ukraine with reducing or cutting off the funding if it carried out what constitutes a war crime of its own? Not a chance. The Democrats are caught, too: caught in the rabbit hole of supporting a war and taking on the moral debris that comes with it. Will they recommend that the actual perpetrators be tried for war crimes, too? You really think so?
I know a fellow who, early in his career before he turned to teaching, worked in Southeast Asia for Air America, a passenger and cargo company that served as a CIA front for supplying forces friendly to the U.S. in that region (and attacking those unfriendly). He was there in the early '60s--six decades ago--when almost no one knew of it. Very little has still been written and researched about it, a gap in our history which should be corrected. He brought it up in a conversation.
He didn't mind discussing the possible death of civilians one bit. "It's part of war," he said with a straight face. "Civilians are going to get in the way." He knew people were being bombed, way before Congress ever considered entering that tragic war. He knew that while some of them could be called enemy, many of them weren't. He didn't seem remorseful. In acts laden with moral dilemmas, he had settled his long ago.
Should this be written off as the "price of freedom"? A defense against worldwide communism that couldn't be opposed? The moral implications of that are sorry to contemplate, including the very fact that this very respected union member who told me didn't have a problem with it.
I demonstrated and worked with those who opposed that war, once that it was exposed. I didn't, and still don't, have a problem with that, either.
Considering that, who is right and who is wrong? What is justifiable and what isn't? Does the murder of one who also had nothing to do with the actual war going on become the exception to the moral rule, or should it be lumped into the same bin as the murder of many? I leave that to you.
As long as it appears to be a one-off, I doubt that many Americans will object to this murder. If it's tied to Putin, nobody will mind much. But that young woman, Daria Dugina (yes, I will say her name), couldn't have known what was about to happen to her. That is a randomness no less chilling because it happens on the other side of the world, no less outrageous because it happened to a single person rather than to thousands. (Something that should be also connected to school and supermarket and church and nightclub and concert and newspaper office and movie house shootings, but I digress)
Unquestionably, morality of any sort is one of the first victims when war is waged. It reinforces what I once told a class of mine: "The only real issue of war that gets decided is whether or not you're alive when it's finished."
Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment