I had hoped not to finish the year writing about conflict and the military, but things being what they are, here I am and there it is. I have contradictory feelings when it comes to the military. I believe it is possible to be grateful for the military in the sense of protecting civilian populations from greater harm given present realities, yet to question the existence and relevance of the military into the future. It isn’t easy to draw any straightforward conclusions about the existence of the military as an entity. Given the history of global conflicts and the ingrained presence of militaries as an institution, it would be naïve to think – or hope — that they will just quietly disappear. If there were no militaries, and no investment in ever more lethal armaments, where would that place us? Two things that might be worth considering here: 1) How the military is portrayed and presented to the public imagination matters 2) Individual and collective mindsets of those in countries that are not at war matter. 

With all the talk of peace deals in Ukraine, one thing is noticeably absent from the picture. What is missing in the talks and coverage, is that this moment represents more than a chance to secure a just and lasting peace for Ukraine. This moment represents a chance to set an alternative course for what happens in future. In fact, even the words ‘lasting peace’ could lead us to ask: “How long is ‘lasting’?”  Zelensky recently spoke at the Dutch parliament. What he said about Putin and Russia is clear and straight to the point – bullies and murderers must be held accountable. And that means accountability in a legal sense, but also – as Zelensky points out – in the sense of addressing what is behind their behaviour; the drivers and motivation for it. This is a critical element in changing the current trajectory.

It would be unwise, however, to look at accountability for Putin and the Russian state without looking at the way that military thinking and mindsets have contributed. Some would point to Putin’s invasion, and place the cause of the problem squarely with his blatant violation of international law and territorial sovereignty in invading Ukraine. While that is certainly a very large part of it, it is not the whole of the problem. Military thinking, a view that ‘might is right’, and a persistent belief that having enough guns, drones, tanks and troops will eventually settle any conflict, is also part of it. That thinking comes from a long history where military responses and ‘resolutions’ have been the go-to reaction. We could consider it high time to invest wholeheartedly in efforts to prevent conflict, and how to non-violently resolve it. Individual citizens must be the driver of this change.   

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is not simply a case of one big bully, or even a bully with a handful of cronies. If it were a schoolyard where this was happening, the case of the recidivist bully who doesn’t heed warnings might elicit a relatively simple response of teaching that bully a hard but necessary lesson. In the case of Putin’s war-machine, there is the bully and his cronies, but also a whole lot of boys with sticks, and a very large crowd of onlookers. If it were the school we were talking about, it would be like a large number of the boys were all involved in the bully’s scheme, believing they were doing the right thing by helping him. Some of those on the sidelines might be cheering them on, while some remained silent and others looked away. This means that accountability for Putin is only one part of the solution. There must be a serious attempt to convey to the average Russian soldier that what they are doing is messed up, hopeless, depraved and toxic. The average Russian citizen must be made just as aware of this. How might this level of awareness be developed?

The rhetoric we hear coming from NATO, and the presentation of the military and how it sits in the popular imagination, is again something which requires careful thought. Billboards featuring soldiers outlined resolutely against a blue sky, with snazzy sunglasses and fancy kit, are presumably designed to create a certain impression of what it’s like to serve in the army – even though the reality may be much different. This presentation of the military is presumably designed to encourage people to sign up and go to war. But, attempting to create a glorious impression of the military surely isn’t helpful to securing a long-term, lasting peace. NATO video clips with tanks traveling at full throttle, blazing gloriously towards battle, are likewise unlikely to represent the day-to-day reality. These are sanitised, selective portrayals of war and the military. They are propaganda.

Mark Rutte, the secretary general of NATO, recently said that Europeans must be “prepared for the scale of war our grandparents and great-grandparents endured”. Rutte is right in that the situation in Ukraine is as much a concern for Europe as it is for Ukraine. While Rutte meets with troops and talks about war readiness, it is possible that Europeans need to be more generally prepared for hardship – and that starts with the average person. How many Europeans would take a 5-day blackout and no water in their stride? Repeated power cuts are nothing unusual in Ukraine. Maybe Europe could introduce “Ukraine Days” where the national grid is disconnected region by region for a few days at a time, so that people understand just how easy it is to take these everyday things for granted. Or maybe airports could randomly close for a few weeks at a time – “Sorry, the airport is closed today – it’s a Ukraine Day”. This kind of interference with everyday life could serve as useful preparation, even without the element of psychological terror that comes from repeated missile strikes.   

Ursula Von de Leyen talks about the freedom to live the European way of life, referring to traditions of democracy, and diversity within unity. Europe, as with other developed nations and parts of the world, will face issues of purpose and priorities in the coming decades. Again, this is as much an individual problem, as it is a collective one. In Ukraine there is a sense of purpose that is hard to find in other places. In large parts of the Western world, life has arguably become altogether too easy. The essence of it revolves around being comfortable, having fun and pursuing trivial entertainments – all of which are frequently taken for granted. On an individual level, the same holds true. The rise of the ‘appearance-focused age’, where everything is potentially fodder for an Instagram or Facebook feed, has contributed to significant changes in the mindset of individuals. Western cultures have seen a rise in self-focused viewpoints more generally – from pursuing beauty treatments, fashion or the latest iPhone, to the mindless scrolling of memes. This could be said to represent the ultimate in freedom to live the way we want. These actions represent the right to make choices, yet they offer nothing of substance. How valuable would it be if the sense of cohesion, purpose and dedication to community building was as all-consuming in other parts of the world as it is Ukraine?

European societies and the people within them have choices to make – both individual and collective choices. On a collective level Europeans can choose to pursue the path of preparing for war the way the world has always known and done – through governments encouraging or requiring military service, through citizens doing what they are told and fighting the citizens of other nations, by investing in arms, building a bigger defence industry and through generally trying to keep fighting fire with fire. This is what happened in past World Wars, and it would seem that some – particularly those of the older generation – would have us keep doing more of it, even though it has not prevented new conflicts from arising. Or, Europe can start to think about alternatives to doing more of the same, and instead start putting time and effort towards establishing a healthier psychological pattern. Even with Putin deposited in The Hague and a war crimes tribunal in place, the mentality underpinning what the world has come to recognise as the Russian war machine – and others like it — needs to be actively challenged by means that don’t involve doing more of the same. There comes a time when hurting bullies the way they are hurting you, does nothing further besides creating a vicious cycle.

So, what does that leave? One option is to try something radically different as a means of getting to the root of the inhumanity that is the Russian war machine. Rather than sending more bullets, artillery shells or drones across the frontlines, it could involve air-drops of a different kind – something to make those soldiers stop and think about what exactly it is they are doing, in a way that maybe hasn’t been tried before. It would seem that after almost four years of conventional war, and the development and adoption of ever more technologies of warfare, a radical change in approach might just be worth a try. There is little to be lost in discharging some radical humanity at the opposing side and seeing how it lands.  

Finally, a note about the so-called ‘Coalition of the Willing’. This is something of a contradiction in terms when it surfaces only after three years of all-out war. The idea of stationing troops, or some other force, once a ceasefire deal has been hashed out arguably does not fit the standard definition of ‘willing’. Again, there is mention of military support. A true ‘Coalition of the Willing’ in more than just name or rhetoric would be willing to go the moment there was a hint of trouble in the air. In the case of Ukraine, that would have meant deployment on or around February 22^nd 2022. Rather than resorting to the same old stuff with tanks and guns, this would be an unarmed force to observe, resist and try something new. The start of any attempt at gross violation and inhumanity represents a simultaneous opportunity to turn that behaviour around right when it surfaces. In an earlier article I referred to the resistance of ‘tank man’ standing his ground, shopping bag in hand, in Tiananmen Square. These are the kinds of actions that could represent a turning point. However, in order to have a true chance at success they would require just as much commitment and investment as any of the strategies currently in use. It would take a great deal more than government announcements and world leaders making speeches. It would require an investment on the part of every person, and the willingness to stand together for as long as it takes.