Walzer "East European states, not Russia, needed security"

Michael Walzer. ⓒJon Friedman

The Ukrainian War, which started with the Russian invasion, entered its third month on the 24th. When the war began, some argued that NATO expansion had triggered the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Recently, some argued that Ukraine will have no choice but to make concessions to Russia to stop civilian casualties. Interestingly, this argument is common among so-called realist international political theorists and some leftist scholars. Michael Walzer, an American progressive political theorist and professor emeritus at Institute for Advanced Study located in Princeton, New Jersey, famous for his book ’Just and Unjust Wars‘, criticized this claim in an interview with the Kyunghyang Shinmun. He said that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is an unjust war, and that claims to recognize Russia‘s sphere of influence in Ukraine are neither just nor democratic. It is Russia that has threatened the security and sovereignty of Ukraine and Eastern Europe, and it is also Russia that is attacking civilians.

-You defined the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an “unjust war”. What is the main reason that this is an unjust war?

Michael Walzer: The invasion forces Ukrainians to fight, to risk their lives, for their freedom. If they thought there was nothing to fight for, if they were Russians at heart, as Putin claimed, there would have been no resistance, and no aggression. Ukrainian resistance proves the injustice of the war.

-What are the differences and similarities between this war and other wars?

MW: Not like Iraq in 2003, when Kurds and Shi’ites, 80% of the population, welcomed the American invasion (but not the occupation); more like Finland in 1939, which resisted the Russian invasion.

-At the beginning of the war, there was criticism that Ukraine had caused the Russian invasion. It is said that Ukraine’s push to join NATO, and the US and Europe’s acceptance of it, caused Russia’s security instability. Interestingly, these criticisms seem to be common to both the realist scholars of international relations and left-leaning scholars. Is this criticism justified?

MW: The realist position was tried at Yalta; Russia (aka the Soviet Union) was given its sphere of influence. Its behavior in that sphere produced widespread popular opposition to its brutal, authoritarian satellites, and that is what led, after 1989, to the demand for NATO expansion. It was East European states, not Russia, that needed security. Too many leftists still have romantic ideas about Russia-or are simply automatically opposed to anything the US does. But it is certainly undemocratic, and should be unleftist, to want to hand Ukraine or any other country back to Russia without consulting the people.

-The West, including the United States, are sending weapons to Ukraine, but not troops. Is this response justified?

MW: Yes, weapons certainly, and individual volunteers, but not troops given that Russia is a nuclear power; prudence dictates a cautious engagement.

-The number of civilian deaths and injuries in Ukraine continues to rise. There is criticism that Ukraine’s continued resistance is increasing civilian casualties. Is this criticism justified?

MW: It is always possible to stop the killing by surrendering. It is certainly Ukraine‘s right to resist, and it is the Russians who are targeting civilians. The blame for civilian deaths falls on them.

-Some argue that Ukraine should give Russia a reason to back down by conceding some of its territory to Russia. But President Bolodymyr Zelenskyy insists that even if Ukraine yields Donbas to Russia, they will eventually attack Kyiv. Do you support this judgment?

MW: I suspect that the Russian aim is a subordinate Ukraine, a satellite state, and the occupation of the Donbas would only be one step toward that goal. But I would think it wise of the Ukrainians to offer the Donbas some version of autonomy-perhaps they have already done that; the Russians want much more.

-US President Joe Biden has been pouring out accusations of war crimes, butchers and genocide against Russia and Putin. What is the implication of this rhetoric? How do these accusations affect war?

MW: I think that people like me should talk like that. It is probably better if heads of state use more diplomatic language, since they will one day have to sit with men like Putin and negotiate.

-Two months have passed since the war started. How will this war end? How can the conditions and environment for the war to end can be made?

MW: A cease fire is more likely than a settlement, but it might last for a while, If it leaves Russian troops on Ukrainian soil, I hope there is no relaxation of sanctions by the US and the EU. Sustained sanctions might force a settlement, perhaps from a post-Putin government, that guarantees everyone’s sovereignty.

-Relations between Russia and China were very close even before Russia‘s invasion of Ukraine. On the other hand, the competition and confrontation between China and Russia and the United States became sharper. Do you agree with the assessment that the international order is being reorganized into a new Cold War structure?

MW: Not sure. There are now three ‘hegemons,’ not two, or four, if the EU rises to the occasion, and there may be shifting alliances. And global warming may force new forms of cooperation.

-How will the Ukrainian war be defined as an event in human history?

MW: It depends on how it turns out. If Russia wins, it may figure in history the way the Spanish Civil War does. If Ukraine survives as a sovereign state, it may be seen as signaling a better world order. How all this is read in China, thinking of Taiwan, may also be a key to its historical importance.

워싱턴|김재중 특파원 hermes@kyunghyang.com

▶ [뉴스레터]좋은 식습관을 만드는 맛있는 정보
▶ ‘눈에 띄는 경제’와 함께 경제 상식을 레벨 업 해보세요!

©경향신문(www.khan.co.kr), 무단전재 및 재배포 금지