Offline: The fearful emptiness of power

Abstract

Ukraine's catastrophe is yielding flamboyant judgements. The era of globalisation is dying. The proclaimed triumph of liberalism is a mirage. The international system of peace, security, and development is breaking down before our very eyes. But we should be more careful. What is happening in Ukraine today presages none of these outcomes. In Robert Service's study of Vladimir Putin, Kremlin Winter (2020), he warns that “Russia is too important to have its politics exaggerated, over-simplified, or turned into a fantasy”. The same can be said for the events unfolding in Ukraine. Rather, what is taking place there is the fulfilment of a promise the international community, including the global health community, chose to ignore. Fuelled by two decades of resentment, suspicion, and mistrust, Putin is challenging what he sees as America's unjustifiably expanded sphere of influence. We do not have to agree with him to understand him. He saw the disintegration of the Soviet Union as a humanitarian tragedy. He believes that without Russia, Ukraine can never succeed (and perhaps the reverse). Putin has launched a war to unite the land of the Rus. But the solution to this conflict will not be found in war or even more war. Neither will the solution be found in international humanitarian law. Philippe Sands directs the Centre for International Courts and Tribunals at University College London. He argued last week that the launch of a war crimes investigation by the International Criminal Court was an insufficient response to Putin's atrocities. Proving a war crime or a crime against humanity is a demanding and lengthy legal process. This protracted route to justice will not solve the immediate crisis. Instead, Sands proposes the invention of a new international tribunal to pursue the “crime of aggression”. This crime is evident for all to see. We are witnessing it every day. There is a gap in the architecture of international law that could be filled if political leaders willed it so. But they do not will it so. And so the violence continues. International humanitarian law is a weak defence. It does not prohibit violence. It does not erase the characterisation of one people by another as less than human. It does not address the determinants of conflict—poverty, hate, racism, fear, crime, and violence. It does not sufficiently constrain technologies that make killing so easy. It does not challenge hierarchies of obedience among combatants that permit illegal acts. And it does not stop those who believe the very idea of “humanitarian law” during conflict is absurd. As tens of thousands of refugees flee into Poland, Hungary, Moldova, Slovakia, and Romania, observers insist that the worst is yet to come. Western nations, terrified of meeting violence with violence and seemingly unable to draw Putin into a political process for peace, are paralysed. The more frenzied our diplomacy, the more extravagant our oratory, the more our impotence comes into ever sharper vision. The perverse contradiction at the heart of the Ukrainian catastrophe is that, as Robert Service underlines, Putin's goal has always been to restore order and stability to Russia. Putin was horrified not only by the collapse of the Soviet empire, but also by the chaos presided over by his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin. He understands that the durability of his leadership depends on Russia's prosperity. That prosperity itself depends on a pact with Russian oligarchs. Once his concordat with the kleptocrats fractures, once the delicate fabric of Russian prosperity begins to unravel, so Putin's power will start to drain away. Putin is trapped by a deadly paradox of his own making. His geopolitical ambitions can only be realised by unleashing economic self-harm, a self-harm that will itself destroy Russia's regional aspirations. As Putin contemplates the turmoil he has precipitated, he might find wisdom in Leo Tolstoy's Epilogue to War and Peace. “What is the cause of historical events?”, asks Tolstoy. “Power. What is power? Power is the sum total of wills transferred to one person. On what condition are the wills of the masses transferred to one person? On condition that the person express the will of the whole people. That is, power is power. That is, power is a word the meaning of which we do not understand.” And perhaps the chilling emptiness of that answer might just make Putin pause before the inevitable oblivion.