Nadin, I value your articles and the informed information you offer your readers about the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
I do not wish to enter a 'tit-for-tak' argument with you or in any way begin some needless & quarrelsome discussion.
For that reason, I will attempt to avoid making any further responses on this issue beyond this one.
Perhaps I am wrong and you have not missed my point, in which case I apologise for suggesting it. I did so for I was aiming to be as civil in my rejection of your statements as possible.
If you did not, indeed, miss my point then I can only assume that you have deliberately ignored it and continue to do so.
Referring to or quoting rules, regulations or even international agreements - especially ones of which the very invasion itself stands in contravention, in no way provides evidence that my view is false or wrong. On the contrary, it actually supports my point.
Neither does your military service have any relevance other than that you have a legitimate interest in commenting on some issues and some degree of direct experience of how military organisations may operate.
I too have served in the armed forces on active service.
The Nuremberg trials were of senior figures who , in the main, if we leave aside the sick Hitler, gave rather than took orders.
The fact is that all human beings are capable of a variety of behaviours along a continuum with negative at one end and positive at the other. All of us are capable of any behaviour on any part of that continuum in my view, given a time, place & context that triggers it. This is true of the sudden burst of loving, caring & appreciation for the beauty & innocence of a new-born child as it is for the anger, hate, fear & reaction to a battlefield situation.
Morality is a human construct and one the definition of which will vary according to cultural contexts, ideology, understanding, personal character and role in society - among other factors.
What one will do in a particular circumstance and context, time and place cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. We are all capable of what our moral code would consider the worst of actions, just as we are all capable of what would be considered the best.
I don't condone, for a moment, either the invasion of Ukraine, the conduct of the war, the targetting of civilians, the atrocities committed by individuals or any other events of the current conflict save perhaps, with qualification, the legitimacy of Ukraine defending itself.
Neither do I reject the notion that even an individual on a battlefield can make a moral choice about what action he or she takes. That does not, however, mean that such a choice can or will necessarily be made with sufficient time, understanding or the equanimity to consider such high philosophical concepts of human morality.
Songs such as 'Universal Soldier' have a sound point to make but sadly, as emotive and laudable as they are for their anti-war sentiments but to many they will be misinterpreted: "... he's the universal soldier and he really is to blame, his orders come from near and far no more - they come from here and there and you and me - & brother don't you see - this is not he way to put an end to war."
No, we can't have war unless individuals fight it. However, the majority of those individuals, in fact all of them to one extent or another, are conditioned, as are all people, by the societies in which they live. Those societies today are predominantly nation states. Nation states are defined by three commonalities which the state alone can exercise (legitimately, if you wish): *Control over life & death; *Control over movement (right to disagree); *Control over information (& the bureaucracy to facilitate it).
In reality, what this means is that responsibility for what takes place in and by a society & accountability for it, is collective and holistic. No one can be a-political, even though many claim to be and commonly excuse it by claiming they have no interest in politics. That is avoidance or denial but in no way excuses them for they still involved.
However, because much, if not most, conditioning is insidious, inevitable & maintained by the powerful in a society, only those who have that power can reasonably be held responsible and accountable for the result of their decisions, including the actions of individuals within the populations they control.
As I suggested in my original response, the individual combatants can choose to be criminals or martyrs and that dilemma is placed on them by those in power. It would be a hard choice at any time but, in the heat of a battle situation, must be little more than reaction made with little if any thought, high rates of adrenaline, serious fatigue, and all manner of other deficiencies - and all of this on top of conditioning already in place before they entered the situation.
So, please don't quote conventions & rules & codes of conduct at me. War has always been brutal. Civilians have always suffered disproportionately. Terror has always been its weapon. None of that is any different in this millennium. Only the technology has changed.
