Grand Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor, Academician Andrei. N. Iezuitov.
War and victory
War and victory. These words and in this combination are probably the most frequently and diversely used nowadays by politicians and media workers. Everyone interprets them in their own way and in their own interests, material and spiritual. They still have no philosophical interpretation and explanation.
In a sense, the philosophical basis for understanding what war is is still the judgement of Carl Clausewitz (1780-1831), who believed that war ‘is nothing else than the continuation of state policy by other means’, ‘not only a political act, but also a genuine instrument of politics, the continuation of political relations, conducting them by other means’.
For Philosophy of Interaction (PI), such a definition of war is both insufficiently essential and too vague and abstract.
From the point of view of the PV, war as any real phenomenon is the interaction of different principles, ultimately, material and spiritual, as their complementarity, mutual enrichment, mutual refinement and partial inter-transition into each other. Such interaction is in principle inherent in all warring countries as real geopolitical phenomena.
Any war is ‘binary’: two warring parties, victory and defeat, material and spiritual beginning, front and rear. In any war, the two sides fight each other. In any war there are common and special in one side, compared to the other warring party.
Meanwhile, war is often viewed in theoretical terms one-sidedly, with only one belligerent side in mind. FW considers any real phenomenon, including war, as ‘binary’.
As Pushkin believed, ‘Unilateralism is the bane of thought.’ This deeply just judgement is not outdated in relation to war.
War, in essence, means the conscious and practically expressed destruction and elimination by one country, with its inherent interaction of material and spiritual principles, of another interaction of other material and spiritual principles inherent in another country, and the replacement in it of such interaction of such principles by another interaction of different in its purpose and internal filling of different principles having material and spiritual significance. The war shows and proves their former, pre-war, internal insolvency, material and spiritual, and the necessity of their essential change, material and spiritual.
These beginnings include: the state structure as a system, military and civil administration, production and consumption, social and personal relations, types of property, jurisprudence, etc. All of them require and receive new material and spiritual expressions in their interaction as common and particular in the defeated country and are to a large extent actually renewed in the victorious country.
During a war, in principle, there is a ‘ferocity of the people’ (Pushkin) on both sides. Whoever has it stronger and ‘more noble’ wins. Sometimes it is called ‘the science of hatred’. It, too, contributes to victory.
There is a philosophically significant structural-functional interaction between two warring countries.
The interaction of various structural and constitutive origins, ultimately material and spiritual, within each of the two warring countries: before the war, during the war, and after the war as an interaction of the general and the particular.
The specific interaction between the strange itself with its structural constituent beginnings before the war, above all during the war, and after the war. Ultimately, everywhere we have in mind the interaction of the general and the particular, of material and spiritual beginnings.
The specific interaction during the war between two belligerent countries is their constant mutual and reciprocal exchange of various kinds and types of blows and other mutually directed and mutually instructive actions towards each other. In essence, it is interaction, albeit of a special kind.
After the war there is a new, peaceful in its nature interaction between the countries, victorious and vanquished, and within the countries between their structural components. In this case, too, the determining role ultimately belongs to the interaction of material and spiritual principles within and between the structural components themselves.
War involves the use of a wide variety of weapons.
In various types of traditional weapons as a special means used in war, to a certain extent, the interaction of material and spiritual principles inherent in such weapons is manifested. Material-technical embodied weapon spiritually positively responds, really increasing its practical effectiveness, to the spiritual-positive attitude to it on the part of the person using the weapon, and the weapon itself, if necessary, rescues such a person, saves him from death. There are many facts confirming this phenomenon.
A warrior, in order to effectively perform his duties must be both materially and spiritually ready for it, which is developed in him by intensive preliminary training and directly improved in combat operations.
Material readiness helps to successfully overcome the various material difficulties and obstacles that exist in war.
The spiritual beginning which the warrior possesses, natural and developed in him by special training, makes him purposeful, persuasive, resourceful, inwardly sensitive and steadfast in the most diverse and life-threatening situations, spiritually and materially significant, which war generates.
Both beginnings, material and spiritual, are in organic interaction, mutually enriching, complementing, mutually reinforcing and mutually coordinating each other. This phenomenon is also confirmed by facts.
True patriotism is neither sold nor bought. It is selfless and effective, materially and spiritually. Volunteering for money is self-selling, materially and spiritually. The pay of a volunteer is many times greater than that of his peaceful teacher. Worth commenting on.
Clausewitz argued that ‘war is nothing but an extended single combat.’ One combatant ‘by means of physical violence’ seeks ‘to compel the other to do his will; his immediate aim is to crush the enemy and thus render him incapable of any further resistance.’ ‘Physical violence is the means, and the end will be to force our will upon the adversary. For the surest attainment of the end we must disarm the enemy, deprive him of the possibility of resistance.’ In short, in war, the end justifies any means. This provision needs to be deciphered and clarified.
A kind of means to ‘crush the enemy’ is currently biological weapons.
War is not only ‘physical violence’ and ‘extended combat’, which aims to ‘disarm the enemy’ and ‘deprive him of the ability to resist’ when ‘physical violence’ is applied to him. In reality, it is much more complicated than that.
In the numerous predictions about the possibility of World War III, relatively little is said about biological warfare. They are mostly declarations of various kinds, and quite abstract ones at that. All attention is drawn to a possible nuclear war and its devastating consequences for mankind.
Meanwhile, biological warfare is very dangerous and is already real for mankind. It is even more dangerous and directly destructive than nuclear war. ‘Poisoned mushrooms’ are worse than ‘nuclear mushrooms’. Their deadly impact is invisible and even imperceptible at first. The ‘epicentre’ is the whole man himself.
Professional and effective military biological formulation, which is offensive in nature, can be used to solve important political problems. The real threat to humanity is any epidemiological situation regardless of its geographical location. Biological weapons are being secretly prepared in different countries.
Biological weapons are relatively cheap to produce and can become truly mass-produced and used. No antidote currently exists against some biological weapons. Biological warfare is not immediately apparent, and its disastrous results may not be reversed almost immediately. Such a war may in fact already be underway, remaining outwardly invisible and undeclared.
It can be said that biological weapons are superior to tactical nuclear weapons in terms of their negative and diverse quantitative results and their versatility. Biological weapons can really undermine the economy of an adversary country and cause panic among the population of such a country. Internally disarm it, without producing externally visible destruction, and without causing damage, material and spiritual, already visible. The more dangerous and insidious is biological warfare as a manifestation of various military actions. This must be borne in mind when talking about biological weapons and biological warfare.
In biological weapons, as in traditional weapons, the interaction of material and spiritual principles also manifests itself in its own way. In the process of its material production, the spiritual beginning to a certain extent really enters into such weapons from its constituent elements as an interaction of material and spiritual principles, with a significant role in them of the spiritual beginning. In biological weapons to a certain extent also enters the spiritual beginning of its manufacturer, his internal attitude to the destruction of people in the creation of such weapons. All this really strengthens, materially and spiritually, the effectiveness of biological weapons.
The additional arming of already belligerents with existing and more advanced weapons, both by their own forces and with the help of allies, can have two different paths. The first way is the intensification of the war and all its constituent negative results and consequences. The enemy, which is inferior in armaments to the other side, will go for anything, in words it cannot be held back. The second way is when one of the warring countries has superiority in total armaments and in weapons of mass destruction. In this case, the other side seeks to overcome such superiority, so that the balance of power in armaments is formed again. This can contain the escalation of war and even stop it, much less stop its continuation. Mutually annihilation in war of both belligerents becomes a reality. Neither side is interested in this, neither materially nor spiritually. With equality of forces, war loses its victorious meaning.
Only the conquest of new territories can really lead to victory. No even the most perfect and successful defence can replace the offensive. It will not lead to victory. From the trenches, well-equipped for a long life, very convenient for him, it will still have to climb out into the open and move forward indomitably. This is necessary for a real victory and it is not easy to do it at all, materially and spiritually.
War is an incredible cruelty and it is impossible to defeat the enemy sitting in a trench. Let us remember the artist V. Vereshchagin with his paintings ‘Apotheosis of War’ (a pyramid of human skulls) and ‘everything is calm on Shipka’ (soldiers freezing in a trench). This is truly great and enduring anti-war art.
‘Pyramid’ of destroyed tanks is less impressive than ‘pyramid’ of human skulls.
War, as its real and brutal manifestation, now also has no human face. Any war is inhuman, people do not need it, and people do not want to participate in it, to die for unknown reasons. Peace and only peace. The war shows and proves it. We need to look closely and listen more sensitively to the war itself, what it shows us and what it says. War itself denies itself.
War has different results. War can be a means of enrichment through arms speculation for some countries and a terrible tragedy for others. This is the unsightly reality, which must be corrected, materially and spiritually, through the interaction of material and spiritual principles, common and special interests for different countries, material and spiritual.
The fundamental peculiarity of the current situation in the world is that virtually all wars, planned and already waged, are aggressive in nature, having as their real purpose something to annex and add to the territory of the country that has taken the path of war. Such a true purpose of war, of course, is camouflaged in every possible way and drowned in the most eloquent words and expressions formally calling for peace.
Unfortunately, war has now become a truly everyday and familiar phenomenon. It no longer causes violent indignation and active rejection, it is perceived almost as a norm of life. The airwaves are filled with unrestrained gaiety, announcers talk about the human losses in the war in jubilant voices.
On both warring sides, the mass and deliberate killing of people in war is now called ‘work’. As early as 1945, General Farrell (USA) considered the dropping of the atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima a ‘job’ that ‘pays well’. In short, a natural and even profitable phenomenon with a real and favourable cause behind it for the belligerent. It is time to stop the war or better to stop it altogether on a world scale. Passing off one’s own aggression as one’s own defence is worse and more dangerous than demagoguery. These are human lives too.
All the above-mentioned forms a favourable ground, material and spiritual, for aggression in relations between countries.
Many people do not pay attention to the war. They fight, let them fight. Somebody is shooting somewhere and at somebody with something. We don’t care about it. We live as we live. Leave us alone.
The position of non-interventionism in relation to war really exists, although it is not the only one at present. There are concepts that actually recognise and even justify war, aggressive in nature.
An essential argument to justify aggression is pseudo-history. It is argued that it is necessary for a country to regain, through war, the territory formerly historically belonging to it. The question arises as to what historical date or historical period should be used to determine such territorial-historical belonging. Dates and periods can be taken for this chronological justification in various and very arbitrary ways, and in one’s own interests, material and spiritual. Historically, different countries had different borders among themselves. Which former frontiers and which historical period will we choose at the present time for declaring war. There is no truly scientific justification for this.
There is also an equivocation of different phenomena and concepts: ‘being part of’ and ‘being part of’. It is known that some countries and regions have voluntarily become part of another country, in fact becoming part of it without being historically part of it. They therefore have the right to terminate their voluntary incorporation into another country with historical sovereignty, which is unalterable. This, too, should be kept in mind at all times.
The apologists for war proudly proclaim to us: we say what we think and think what we say. Should we be proud of this: we say we kill and we kill. It happens that way too. Saying anything we want doesn’t mean we should do what we say. One should think carefully before saying something, much less doing it. Especially when it comes to human lives in war.
In the interests of peaceful peace, it is better to leave things as they have historically developed so far, and to solve all possible border disputes between countries through interaction, material and spiritual, between them, their common and special interests, material and spiritual, and not through war as mutual violence.
It is universal co-operation, material and spiritual, that is the way to universal peace, material and spiritual, at present and in the future.
What does the victory achieved in war represent in philosophical terms? It should be said that there is still no really philosophical understanding and explanation of victory as a phenomenon and concept. Victory is currently regarded as success in a battle, war, complete defeat of the enemy. Such a definition of victory is very superficial and inaccurate.
There are different grounds for negotiation between warring countries. At the same time, it is at least premature and unserious to speak of one’s imminent victory and demand from the enemy his unconditional surrender, even without having gone beyond the borders of one’s own country in its military operations. The assurances that everything will be resolved in time are not very convincing either. So far, the ‘carriage’ has not moved very far and is still very stiff. We will see, if we live to see. The world doesn’t want the war to continue.
For FW, military victory in principle means the restoration and development of interaction of own material and spiritual principles in the already victorious country and the establishment of a new interaction of material and spiritual principles in the already defeated country, which excludes its militarisation in the future. The real price of military victory is truly infinite, materially and spiritually.
Victory can and must become a guarantor of peace-loving stability for the defeated country and for other countries of the world.
It is necessary to stop any arms race in all countries and, first of all, in the military superpowers (USA, Russia, China), to introduce a ban on special technologies for the direct manufacture of products of direct military use and to limit technologies that indirectly contribute to such manufacture. In items (military and peaceful ‘dual-use’), exclude and weaken their military purpose as much as possible. All this is carried out under the strictest international control and punishment for violation of the accepted obligations by various countries. At the same time, humanity does not accept such a modern ploy, according to which peace on earth should be only for the ‘strongest’. That is dangerous for peace. Peace on earth should be for all. Let us remember I.A. Krylov: ‘the strong always have the powerless to blame’. This wisdom of the fable writer remains to this day.
‘Strong politics’ does not follow the famous words: ‘You have strength, you don’t need brains’. When there is strength, intelligence is especially needed for strength to make sense.
For FV, ‘Strong Politics’ is not the complacent intensification of strikes against the enemy, nor all intimidation by the use of war without borders, but the practical realisation of the many promises, the transition from words to deeds for the benefit and in the interests of world peace, material and spiritual. First do something victorious, really superior to others, and positive, material and spiritual, and then shout about your victory. Unfortunately, the opposite often happens. There can be a war without a crushing victory and a victory without a brutal war. War and victory must be motivated and coordinated, or better yet, do without war at all.
FW alone cannot practically solve the problems already having and emerging in modern life. It can reveal and explain their real essence, outline and justify real ways to solve them. This fully applies to the problem of ‘War and Victory’. Performers are needed. They already exist, there are many of them and they act in word and deed. The FV is ‘committed’ to peace, not war. This is the main thing.
Mankind, each and every one of us, vitally needs an irrevocable and speedy victory, material and spiritual, of world peace over war. It is quite realistic to achieve such a victory if the whole world takes up the task of actually realising it.
© Iezueitov A
19.06.2023 St. Petersburg
