I feel that you have missed my point.
I certainly bow to your far greater knowledge of the culture, geography, politics and military organisation of the Russian Federation.
I also accept that there are associated laws that apply to military personnel behaviour both within a particular army and outside of it, for instance internationally, whether by understanding, treaty or legal agreement.
Similarly, I accept that everyone, in simplistic terms, has a choice. However, life is not simplistic and service under orders in the military is far from such.
There is a major difference between an inevitable and likely very immediate penalty for disobeying an order and the potential for penalty depending on which side has victory, what influence someone has and whether someone is brought to trial in the distant future.
The reality is that those who are actually responsible for brutality are those who have power and who are able to direct and dictate life or death of those under their power. Indeed, that is one of the three factors that define a State.
We may all believe that we have the nerve, equanimity, understanding and control to make rational, reasonable and morally sound decisions. In the event, I believe that most of us would fall short.
Yes, anyone who injures or kills another is responsible for doing so. However, states legitimise killing, that is those in control in those states legitimise killing and do so when they consider it is in their interests and, in most cases, when it is not they who will actually pull the trigger, throw the grenade or fire the missile.
The military, as do some other institutions, such as churches for instance, instills a code into its personnel and that code is reinforced not only by discipline & superordinates but by the culture that is created and the force of that culture that is levied by peers of the same or similar rank, that almost certainly having even more influence on behaviour.
The fact is that it is not the 'ordinary' person that chooses to start a war but those with power and control. It is rarely the young that start wars but rather the old. It is rarely the Generals that fight wars but the foot soldier, the rank & file. It is rarely those who are actually the culpable criminals responsible who suffer but, as in other ways, those who have no choice or - to see it in your terms - only the most difficult of choices - choices which are effectively no choice at all.
In addition, although civilians have always been casualties and even trophies and spoils of war, it seems that as weapon technology increases in sophistication and power, civilians are increasingly the targets and the decimation of habitat, built environment, essential service, the essential requisities of life and the very lives of civilians, rather than military forces and infrastructure.
In other words, even leaving aside what humanity as a whole has done and is doing to destroy this planet in other ways, war and other armed conflict, caused by a relative few culprits but perpetrated by the many they control, has as good as defeated any hope for humanity.
Given that such is the case, my argument is that drastic action ought to be taken to stop all of those relatively few demagogues who choose to start conflict and wars.
However, if our supposedly smart human race cannot see this and find a way to do it then we may just as well accept the nuclear challenge, risk or whatever you wish to call it. The worst case scenario being that humanity will cease to exist - though that may be the 'best case' scenario in reality.
Millions if not billions of people (2.3 billion was the latest figure I read) are already displaced, living on handouts or dying because they dont get what they need. So, what has humanity to lose?
