Military end to the war is possible — but many won’t face that reality

Instead of addressing the crime of waging a war of aggression, the discussion is now focused on:

• Who suffers more by killing Ukrainians,

• Who dances the Bolshoi ballet better,

• Whose 19th-century novels teach more humanism,

• Whose president is less legitimate,

• Whose suit fits worse.

If, between individuals, the offer "let's eat yours first, then each of us will eat our own" is a tired old joke, why should it be treated seriously in international politics?

Instead of a real 30-day ceasefire, we get a fake 30-hour pause, during which no one actually stops anything. Prediction: next comes the idea of a permanent 30-minute peace — one Moscow will break at minute 29. Otherwise, NATO will “surely” attack them.

Once upon a time, O. Henry’s characters remarked that there are a few things everyone thinks they know about: sports, medicine, and business.

I’d add a fourth — peacemaking. The farther someone is from the front line, the less they understand about Ukrainian–Russian dynamics or how today’s wars are fought, the easier it is for them to demand peace. Even though Americans have developed solid, field-tested theories of conflict, theory alone doesn’t account for local context. A military solution to this war does exist. You’re just too scared to admit it, dear post-heroes...

Source

About the author. Viktor Pushkar, social psychologist

The editorial staff does not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.