Saturday, April 30, 2022

About the Ukraine, the WEIRDEST war, Part 2: On cooperation in war

On Thursday I posted about the Ukraine war. The post had two parts. The first part was a standard kind of post on such matters, some links to news, a quote from a pundit, and some connecting-tissue prose. The second part was quite different. It was a fantasy fueled by conspiracy-theory: The world’s leaders, on all sides of the conflict, had sent their proxy bots to a hidden underground lair for the purpose of managing the war. They were playing a game. Games, as you know, are cooperative ventures.

The parties cooperate to establish a venue within which they can compete against one another. In the case of ordinary games, such as chess, poker, soccer, jai alai, and so forth, the rules are agreed to in advance. Such agreement is an act of cooperation. There is always the possibility of cheating, which is anti-cooperative. But there is a framework.

What’s the agreed framework for war in general, or for this particular war? We’ve got the Geneva Conventions, “that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war.” But that’s only one aspect of the conduct of war, and the conventions are easily breached. We’ve got treaties governing the use of biological and chemical weapons. There are implicit norms, there is international law, and so forth. There IS stuff, but it’s not like the rules of chess or soccer. It’s much looser.

For example, we’ve got understandings, let us say, about nuclear weapons. Consider this recent statement, from January 22, 2022: Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races. The five states are The People’s Republic of China, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. Consider these paragraphs:

We affirm that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. As nuclear use would have far-reaching consequences, we also affirm that nuclear weapons—for as long as they continue to exist—should serve defensive purposes, deter aggression, and prevent war. We believe strongly that the further spread of such weapons must be prevented.

We reaffirm the importance of addressing nuclear threats and emphasize the importance of preserving and complying with our bilateral and multilateral non-proliferation, disarmament, and arms control agreements and commitments. We remain committed to our Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations, including our Article VI obligation “to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

It concludes, “We are resolved to pursue constructive dialogue with mutual respect and acknowledgment of each other’s security interests and concerns.” That’s a statement of good intentions, no more. It’s not a binding and enforceable agreement.

I think we can say that, in threating the use of nuclear weapons, Russian has violated the spirit of those good intentions. And? Does the other side take them seriously? How does it affect their actions? That’s something being negotiated. And negotiations imply cooperation. The cooperation may be coerced, but it is still cooperation.

We’re trying to figure out how to fight this war. We’re negotiating the rules. What rules govern the use of sanctions or the seizure of assets? What about Russia’s gas? Does Russia deny it to Europe? Does Europe stop purchasing it? And cyberwar, what are the rules there?

The fact is, it’s all up for grabs. In one way or another everyone in the world has a stake in this war, which has become a proxy war between NATO and Russia, with implications everywhere. While everyone is affected, there are a relatively small number of effective agents, and they certainly are not neatly aligned on two sides. It’s a mess. No one really knows what’s going on. It does appear to me that the nature of the international order is up for grabs.

My conspiracy-theory fantasy, bots playing a war game in a Bond-villain lair, that is much neater that what is actually happening. But then, that’s how conspiracy theories work, they reduce a complex situation to an intelligible conflict between comprehensible actors. That’s not what’s happening it the world today.

No comments:

Post a Comment