Opinion: the Russian president's claims about Ukraine do not justify the war crimes and other human rights atrocities we have already seen
In the immediate aftermath of atrocities on civilians in Bucha, Borodyanka and other towns near Kyiv, accusations of massacres against civilians by Russian troops started to emerge. More recent massacres in Mariupol and the Donbas region have added force to these charges. Ursula von der Leyen in Europe and Joe Biden in the US have now called for Vladimir Putin to be investigated for war crimes, and even crimes against humanity have been mooted.
The response by Moscow to these charges is bordering on the farcical, with suggestions that the photos and videos from Bucha are fakes staged by the Kyiv regime for Western media. This is a disingenuous response born by delusional hubris and does not merit to be taken seriously, or even entertained as a conceivable alternative account of historical facts.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ One News, Satellite images show mass grave near Mariupol
There is, however, another possible line of defence for Putin that ought to be considered. Even if these atrocities were committed by Russian troops, Putin is still not responsible, since these were actions motivated by revenge by rogue soldiers not acting on a chain of command that leads all the way back to the Kremlin. This begs the question: what does it mean to be responsible for one's action in war? And is Putin responsible for everything that is happening on the ground in Ukraine?
Responsibility for an act of violence can take different forms. As moral philosopher Philippa Foot pointed out, we are responsible for either doing or allowing an act of violence. We 'do’ an act of violence when either initiating violence by setting the harmful sequence going, or by sustaining violence by keeping the harmful sequence going when it would otherwise have stopped. We ‘allow’ violence when we enable violence by removing some barrier which would have brought the harmful sequence to a halt, or when we forbear to prevent violence by failing to take some action which would have brought the sequence to a halt.
On those four grounds (initiating, sustaining, enabling, and forbearing to prevent), the Kremlin has a lot to answer for. Blood is on their hands, and history will not forget. Putin will argue that this was a just war on his part, and that he had just cause to initiate, sustain, enable and forbear to prevent this conflict.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, a frontline medic in Kyiv describes what he has witnessed to Cian McCormack
But that is a weak argument. A just war does not justify war crimes and other human rights atrocities which we have seen already in Ukraine. The pressing question is not the just or unjust nature of the conflict, but more specifically the allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Russian troops.
Assuming that Putin will recognise the authenticity of the civilian massacres committed by his troops, he could still try to wash his hands of these atrocities on the grounds that he never gave the command for the executions, tortures and rapes that are occurring today in Ukraine. It is a line of defense that must be refuted.
In moral philosophy we attach responsibility not only to the intended consequences of our actions, but also to foreseeable (but not necessarily intended) consequences of our actions. In his book Violence and Responsibility, John Harris argues that one is responsible for an act of violence when expected injury or suffering is highly likely to be inflicted on others on the basis of what one knows, or ought reasonably to have known, will result.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, discussion on Russian war crimes in Ukraine with Christina Lamb (The Sunday Times) and Prof Siobhán Mullally (director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at NUI Galway & UN Special Rapporteur Trafficking in Persons)
If I sell a car knowing that the brakes are faulty, I’m responsible if the person who buys the car has an accident. My intention was merely to sell the car, not to get anyone hurt, but I should have reasonably known that an accident was a likely consequence, given the state of the car.
Similarly, if it is true that Putin unleashed mercenaries and other dogs of war on the civilians of Ukraine (including rogue soldiers from Chechnya or Syria), then he is responsible for their actions. Ireland knows something about this, having lived through the traumas and war crimes inflicted by the Black and Tans.
Ignorance is no defense against accusations of war crimes. Whether or not Putin gave the command for those atrocities to go ahead is immaterial. He is responsible for war crimes in Ukraine, and possibly crimes against humanity, because he knew, or it is reasonable to assume that he should have known, what was going to happen when he asked mercenaries and other criminals to fight his war.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, 'you simply can't trust Putin': Ukrainian MP Lesia Vasylenko on the ongoing impact of Russia's invasion of the country as well as the prospect for peace
While Putin is probably responsible for war crimes in Ukraine, others also hold some responsibility for this war. For example, one could argue that Europe's increasing reliance on gas and oil from Russia over the last few decades was unwise, to say the least, and it fuelled Putin’s belligerent ideals. To that extent Europe is also indirectly responsible to some degree for what is happening in Ukraine today.
Of course, we can safely assume that no one in the West really knew, or could have imagined, what Putin’s true intentions were, so our responsibility is minimal, at least prior to the invasion of Crimea in 2014. However, Europe’s responsibility increased after 2014, and will increase further if it keeps buying Russian oil and gas for as long as Putin remains in power, since that would be a clear case of sustaining violence, to use Philippa Foot’s terminology.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
