This war was not inevitable

The Russian attack on Ukraine, the bombing of peaceful cities, the executions of the civilian population, the murders, rapes and abuse perpetrated by Russian soldiers in the occupied territory raise the question of what to do next and how to live now. Especially in front of those citizens of Russia who, before February 24, believed in the European, free, democratic future of the country and contributed to it to the best of their ability.

Natural reaction to what is happening: anger, disgust, rage and guilt. And besides, a feeling of utter impotence: what can an ordinary citizen do, whose opinion has long been ignored either in elections or in the state media? Someone who can't even go out to a legal, constitutionally permitted civil protest without the risk of being beaten by the police or going to jail?

The feeling of powerlessness in the present gives rise to the idea that in the past, the actions of citizens who disagree with the state did not affect anything. Let me come out to protest, transfer money to opposition and human rights organizations, sign some petitions - so what, after all, the war happened anyway? What difference does it make what exactly I said and did if these actions did not prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Mariupol and war crimes in Bucha? What are our efforts worth when history has led us to a gloomy and dark basement filled with the bodies of innocently killed people?

These questions may seem rhetorical. Yes: our efforts were worthless, the European path for Russia was initially closed, what happened is a harsh historical inevitability. In my opinion, this is not so. The answer to these questions is not at all obvious. And to think about them is not empty and soulless ranting in the face of an unimaginable tragedy. Vice versa.

Some say that war was inevitable. That only naive fools could believe that Russian President V.V. Putin will listen to moral, political, economic, and generally at least some rational arguments and withdraw troops from the border after the end of the exercises. That after 2014 Russia's all-out war against Ukraine was only a matter of time. That the events of 2014 were clearly predetermined by the events of the early 2000s. And in general: the current catastrophe clearly follows from the previous political and economic situation, as well as the entire history of Russia since the time of the Tatar-Mongol yoke.

Such statements sound gloomy and correspond to the mood of the moment, but are by no means a statement of the obvious. They imply the truth of a certain philosophical thesis, the thesis that only the real is possible. If something happened, then it could not be otherwise. This thesis is not supported by facts. Of course, the real is possible - this is confirmed by the fact that it happened. But what is the basis of the assertion that what has not become real has always been impossible? That events could not have taken a different path?

History is the study of what really happened. And yet, we often have the feeling that events could have unfolded differently. Whether this is true or not is a matter of debate among historians and philosophers. I will not give the theoretical arguments of the parties, but simply invite readers to consider whether they could have done otherwise at some point. Choose another job, go to study in another specialty, buy another birthday present for your mother? If you have the conviction that you could have acted differently even if you made the smallest, most insignificant, morally neutral decision, then you believe that not every action inevitably follows from your entire life history and external circumstances.

If you could choose tea over coffee in the cafeteria during your work break, it means that not only the real thing is possible. That your personal history could have taken a different path. That something in your life could be different. This means that there are no fundamental philosophical reasons for denying that other possibilities could be realized in the life of an entire state, and not those that, to our horror, were actually realized.

Why is it important? Because it allows you to assign moral responsibility to those who should bear it, and remove the burden of guilt from those who are innocent. If we assume that the war was inevitable, then it is easy to draw one of two conclusions. Or we are all guilty, because everything that any of us did was just a small link in a huge causal chain of events leading to war. Or the actions of none of us affect anything at all. I told students about free will and moral responsibility, but the war still happened? This means that either my lectures somehow contributed to the war, or had no consequences at all. Some citizens of Russia treated children, baked bread, built houses and planted trees? Unfortunately, all these events somehow mysteriously led to war (or did not affect anything at all).

The assertion that nobody's actions affected anything is obviously absurd, because the trees planted have grown, the baked bread has been eaten, and houses have been built - and someone lives in them with their joys and problems. Each action gives rise to some consequences, and it is not always possible to foresee them. However, it is intuitively clear that if some action had not been committed, then the consequences for the future from not performing this action would have been different than from its commission. If someone had not planted a tree, it would not have grown. And if a tree was planted and grew, but then was uprooted by a sudden hurricane, then it does not follow either that a hurricane was inevitable, or that it is pointless to plant trees.

No less absurd is the claim that every action led to war. If on February 2, 2002, at exactly noon, someone transferred money to a charitable foundation, or drank a cup of coffee, or put aside a volume of Hegel without reading it to the end, what grounds do we have for believing that this act was necessary, albeit a small link on the path to today's disaster? The only reason to think so is the belief in the truth of the philosophical thesis that only the real is possible. But, as we have just seen, this thesis is refuted by our everyday intuitions and is not supported by history. On the contrary, it is often advocated by those who do not want to delve into the complex and intricate causes of any particular event. Indeed, if any historical event was inevitable, then its cause is the entire previous history of mankind. Plain and simple, the issue is closed.

What does all these everyday examples have to do with when there is a war? the moralist may ask. My answer is that this war was not inevitable. She had specific reasons, much closer to our time than the Tatar-Mongol yoke and serfdom. Most of these reasons are the decisions and actions of the current leadership of Russia, as well as those military and civilians who are directly involved in what is happening. Meanwhile, the majority of Russian citizens lived their lives, doing bad, good or morally neutral deeds, which had a variety of consequences.

The responsibility of each of us lies in what we really did in the past, and not in the fact that we were part of a single and comprehensive chain of events that dooms us all to the only possible gloomy present. Therefore, the responsibility for our future also lies with each of us, taking into account those objective factors that determine what exactly we can do in the current circumstances. It may not be much, but even a small action will have very real and tangible consequences.

History is not written on eternal tables dictated by absolute spirit - it is every minute made up of a huge number of our individual actions. And in this terrible time, as in any other, only we ourselves must decide what kind of actions we will commit.

Maria Sekatskaya — philosopher, candidate of philosophical sciences, researcher at the University of Düsseldorf

The opinion of the author may not coincide with the opinion of the editors

Cover photo: Daniel Enchev, Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)