No peace without freedom
A little peace and a little sun – “Ein bisschen Frieden, ein bisschen Sonne”, as a famous German pop song went in the 1980s – that is not what Ukraine needs. Peace alone cannot be the goal; victims must also receive justice and survivors must regain their freedom.
Dissolution of boundaries has become a key feature of everyday contemporary life. From nonchalant private sprawls in public spaces to brief forays into the metaverse to situational identity changes, the vast majority of people in Western, democratic, affluent societies have become accustomed to no longer feeling boundaries, except when it comes to their own. Any incursion from the outside, be it of a friendly, admonishing nature or of a regulative, intervening nature, is considered to be completely exaggerated and basically unjustified.
Borders and fear
However, since Vladimir Putin crossed a clear border, namely the Ukrainian border, on February 24 this year, the concept of crossing borders has taken on a more serious character. Suddenly it is necessary to take a stand on a war that one did not (want to) see coming.
The approach of frivolous complacency adopted in the past years seems to have reached its limits as there is nothing people in Western Europe fear more than an escalation of this war – a spillover of the conflict into their own country, into their own society. Fear of this spillover has driven the authors and signatories of the open letters, which appeared in April and June in “Emma” and “Die Zeit” respectively and which have since then been signed by hundreds of thousands of other people, to argue that the resistance, i.e. support for Ukraine, must have its limits.
Not that this fear of a major war is unfounded or that wars should be avoided wherever possible. It’s just that once war has been unleashed, a society finds itself in a completely different logic from the one before. It is precisely this logic that the authors and signatories of these open letters do not seem to consider.
Putin’s aims in the war or the fight for freedom
The condemnation of the war of aggression can be endorsed without much debate; there is agreement on this at the highest political and broadest social levels. Stating that diplomacy and negotiations would be better than war is not necessary. Similarly, the principle of non-violence and the desire for peace are also understood to be shared common goals and aspirations. No one would contradict all this – certainly not the people in Ukraine, who never wished for war.
Now however, this war – like any other war once it has begun – is primarily about achieving the goals associated with it. For Putin, it is the annexation of Ukraine or, if that should not succeed, its complete destruction. For the Ukrainians, it is about their country, their existence and, above all, their freedom. They are fighting for their country and their freedom at great cost, including with the loss of human lives. And there is no reason to doubt that the loss of even one of these human lives would be taken lightly.
An end to this war is not in sight until one of the two warring parties has achieved its objective or its remaining superiority is so clear that it can declare the war over and impose its terms. Negotiations are only possible when both parties want to end the war because they are exhausted and a clear victory is not in sight on either side. Finally, peace can only last if the victims receive some justice. It is this brutal binary logic that characterizes war and is diametrically opposed to any terms set for mere appeasement.
The value of an open society
As a reminder, Germany could only be forced to surrender in Reims, France, on May 7, 1945, because the Allies – after the greatest war effort and also at great cost in terms of human lives – were clearly superior. At that time – as in Ukraine today – it was not about „a little peace, a little sun,“ as the German pop singer Nicole sang through the hit parade in the early 1980s. It was and is about nothing less than preserving an open society. Ukrainians are fighting not only for their lives, but above all for their freedom. And this further means that a life without freedom puts mere survival into perspective.
A world without wars is an illusion. It can only stem from the naive belief of Western European societies since the end of the Cold War that one can live in a freedom secured by law without being required to defend and enforce that law. Wars are undeniably terrible and horrible, but they have helped important social developments to break through. As citizens of liberal societies in a peaceful Europe we should remind ourselves of this: that we only live in this almost limitless freedom because our ancestors fought for it – and were prepared to lay down their lives for it. Only in this way can we understand what it means to fight for our own freedom.
It is true that open letters testify to an open society. However, the authors of these open letters have perhaps missed the most important lesson for war as stated by the famous Austrian-British philosopher Sir Karl Popper: the insight that open societies must provide not only for their freedom but also for their security. It is not mere coincidence that Popper decided to write about the open society and its enemies on March 13, 1938 – the day he learned of Hitler’s invasion of Austria.
It is true that open letters testify to an open society. However, the authors of these open letters have perhaps missed the most important lesson for war as stated by the famous Austrian-British philosopher Sir Karl Popper: the insight that open societies must provide not only for their freedom but also for their security. It is not mere coincidence that Popper decided to write about the open society and its enemies on March 13, 1938 – the day he learned of Hitler’s invasion of Austria.